Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Public Research Establishments

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
[Relevant documents: First report from the Science and Technology Committee of Session 1994–95, on the Efficiency Unit Scrutiny of Public Sector Research Establishments (HC 19), the Government's response thereto (HC 805), the fifth report from the Science and Technology Committee of Session 1995–6 and the first report of Session 1996–97 on the Prior Options Reviews of Public Sector Research Establishments (HC 643 and HC 71-I) and the Government's response thereto (HC 291 of Session 1996–97).]

Sir Giles Shaw: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate in the House on the subjects connected with the work of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. The debate is about the inquiry into the prior options reviews, which was recently concluded, and to which the Government have now responded, although the response was not available when the Liaison Select Committee met to discuss whether a debate was appropriate. It is indeed appropriate, because of the importance of the subject and the reviews that have recently been undertaken.
Prior options reviews are not part of the everyday parlance of the House and it is therefore important that we establish what we are talking about. Prior options reviews are most closely associated with the next steps reforms that the Government have undertaken in recent years. The reviews decide whether institutes should be abolished, privatised, made into next steps agencies or retained in the parent Department. Significant questions are asked. Is the function needed? Must the public sector be responsible for the function? Must the public sector provide the function itself? What is the scope for rationalisation? How will the function be managed? The reviews covered almost all the institutes and institutions, via the research councils or directly through the Government, and therefore encompassed the entire range of scientific activities undertaken outwith academia.
Each executive agency in the programme is subject to five-yearly reviews, in which the prior options questions are addressed. The reviews were not designed for scientific institutions and insufficient adjustments may have been made to fit them for the purpose. That was one of the reasons why the Select Committee felt it necessary to undertake the inquiry. The Select Committee was not wholly convinced that the inquiry would be an appropriate step, but it was clear—as the reviews took longer to report

than expected—that the scientific community had become deeply uneasy about what was going on. For that reason, the Select Committee undertook its inquiry.
Our conclusions are important and also significant. The Select Committee has always accepted that some review of public sector research establishments was justified. After all, the bodies under review cost some £690 million a year. If the 1992 Levene Stewart "Review of Allocation, Management and Use of Government Expenditure on Science and Technology" was correct, the research laboratories of many Government Departments were ripe for review. One of the recommendations of our most recent report was that all Government research establishments should be reviewed at least once every five years.
It concerned the Select Committee that the review process was seen as hasty and repetitive and as inappropriately applied to research council institutes, which can be central to the research councils' mission. Moreover, in most cases, the institutes are reviewed regularly by their parent bodies—as is only sensible—and the research councils have a good record in closing those that are unsatisfactory.
The Select Committee was also concerned about the openness of the procedure. The Government began well by placing guidelines in the Library and by participating in a meeting to discuss the reviews which was held at, and under the auspices of, the Royal Society. However, as the reviews progressed, that openness ceased. The Government announced that
full independence from the public sector
would be desirable for the Institute of Arable Crops Research, the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, the John Innes Centre and the Silsoe Research Centre. It was not clear exactly what this would imply, but the Government commissioned further work on the matter from Sir Peter Levene.
The terms of reference of the committee were not published. This—together with the fact that it was thought to be looking at establishments that had not yet been reviewed—led to great uneasiness. In the course of the Committee's inquiry, it became clear that Sir Peter's task was primarily concerned with pension provision and pension liabilities. Frankly, I do not understand—nor does the Committee—why a clear announcement of the nature of the inquiry could not have been made at the outset. Much unease and loss of morale could thus have been easily avoided.
Another matter that troubled the Committee was that the reports of the review teams were not published. The Government's view is that these, and the steering group reports, constituted advice to Ministers which would "not normally be published". This is one of the issues that Select Committees of whatever persuasion come up against from time to time—the blanket of "advice to Ministers". It may be the case, but there seems to be little reason for denying publication, particularly since the earlier efficiency scrutinies had been published.
There may have been concern that the Government might be criticised for rejecting the advice of the reports. Frankly, I doubt that, because my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology is not someone who would be deterred by that, and he would be encouraged and would probably accept the advice. Although the Government


have been criticised for the scale and scope of the efficiency scrutiny, they have not, as far as I am aware, been criticised for rejecting any of the advice.
The unwillingness to release the reports increased the scientific community's suspicion of the Government's motives. It also meant that the Committee could not discount the complaints that the findings of the reviews and the steering groups were being overridden. This lack of openness is particularly regrettable, given the White Paper's undertaking that advice from the Committee and expert groups working on specific issues would normally be published.
Decisions were taken on some Government research establishments before the current round of reviews. AEA Technology—which the Committee visited—the Laboratory of the Government Chemist and the National Physical Laboratory were to be privatised. On 29 January, the Government announced the result of the current set of reviews in broad outline. ADAS—formerly known as the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service—and the Building Research Establishment are to be privatised, as was already known, and as had been recommended by the efficiency scrutiny.
Some of the laboratories in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and some in the Scottish Office are to become executive agencies, or companies limited by guarantee. Almost all research council institutes are to remain as they are, subject to efficiency improvements. We are promised that the director general of the research councils will have oversight of these efficiency improvements.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is there any difference between the treatment of institutions in Scotland under the Scottish Office and institutions in the rest of the United Kingdom?

Sir Giles Shaw: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman because the Committee did not investigate Scottish institutions, but we might well consider his question in a further assessment. This will be an on-going process, as he is well aware.
The reviews have more worrying implications. The Government's policy has been to substitute meddling from central Departments with the discipline of the marketplace. The result of those reviews seems to have been to increase the meddling from the centre, even though market disciplines are in place. The Government response to our recent report tells us that research council institutes
account for some £220 million annually of public funds from the Research Councils and from other Government departments and other public bodies.
That is less than a third of the total involved. Much of that money is placed in the institutes as contracts from Government Departments and other public bodies—that is to say, the Department concerned has concluded that no one else from whom it can obtain the same research is better or cheaper.
Research councils have always had the independence of their charters. In 1993, the Government reformed the system so that each of the new research councils had a chairman drawn from business, and a new mission.

The councils were given a fresh remit by the White Paper which emphasised the need to enhance wealth creation and the quality of life. That seems entirely appropriate and is an excellent example of the action that the Government have taken to restore and develop the structure within which science can compete.
In the Government response to the Committee's most recent report, the prior options reviews were justified on the ground that the Science and Technology Act 1965 gave the Secretary of State power to give directions to the research councils, and that the White Paper
gave the Director General of the Research Council specific responsibilities for assisting Ministers in ensuring the successful and high quality operation of the Research Councils".
That is all very laudable, and the White Paper agreed to give the DGRC responsibilities. But it also suggested that the director general would be advised by a small standing group of independent experts, selected to allow him or her to draw upon the requisite scientific, economic, industrial and management expertise. Frankly, this has not been carried out.
There is an irony in this process. In setting up the next steps agencies—with which prior options reviews are most closely associated—the Government were devolving power away from the centre of Departments and giving it to those responsible for operations who, it was assumed, would know their business best. The research councils had substantial independence before the process began. The outcome of the reviews appears to have increased central oversight of non-departmental public bodies, rather than reduced it. That is one of the prime criticisms that we make.
We are not the only ones to make that criticism. Dr. Michael Elves—a business man who knows the public sector system well—said that UK public sector science
should be recognised for what it is—a living and growing organism that can be all too easily snuffed out and which would take a long time to re-build, if indeed it ever could be.
That is a fair warning.
The existence of the Select Committee on Science and Technology will be a bulwark to prevent this kind of thing from happening again, and our recent activities have qualified us for this role. A large proportion of Government-funded science flows through the research councils and institutes, and it is well within the remit of a Committee established by this House to monitor its effectiveness and the suitability of its structure. Colleagues will recall that the Committee's first report to the House concerned the structure of the Office of Science and Technology.
The Committee's concerns go wider, and we need to develop the OST as Parliament's instrument to ensure that we can monitor and measure the pulse and heartbeat of British science. The economic health of the nation depends on that, and the very survival of our people depends on the development of scientific solutions to our human problems. The Committee's concern with reviews of this sort is that this debilitating matter has had severe effects on the morale of the science base. Prior options is only the most recent review, but it is by no means the only one that has been effected. For example, there was the 1992 review of allocation, management and use of Government expenditure, and the 1993


multi-departmental scrutiny. Following those, it was not surprising that the latest review received a frosty reception.
The Committee must have a role in overseeing what goes on, and we must ensure and advise on the effectiveness of the instruments that the Government set up. Our research councils have served us well, and I believe that the Government's structure for science has served the nation well also.
It is our judgment that the Select Committee on Science and Technology will serve the House well. As I come to the end of my 23 years here, I am delighted to think that the Committee will continue to be a satisfactory achievement for all who serve on it.
What really makes a Select Committee work, however, is the commitment of the individual members and the wonderful contribution of the Clerks. Our Clerk served the Committee outstandingly: every good creation should have its Eve, and we certainly had one. At the end of the day, the effectiveness with which the House can use the information supplied by Select Committees will be its greatest achievement.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: All members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology will want to thank the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) for the way in which he has chaired it in its first complete Session of Parliament. He has been fair and patient, and he has been loyal to the Committee in everything that he has done. The Committee will also want to join him in thanking the staff and all who have given evidence. I believe that the next Parliament will want to continue what is perhaps a slight anomaly within the structure of departmental Committees but is fully justified by the work that has been done.
The prior options review process was a time-wasting indulgence, as the Chairman of the Committee said, but it was an indulgence specifically of the Deputy Prime Minister's prejudice against science, against the public sector, and therefore against public sector science. It caused prolonged uncertainty and demoralisation in services tackling key problems on which the Government have conceded that they have failed and are no longer trusted by the public—most dramatically in the handling of BSE and food safety.
The research establishments reviewed included the Veterinary Laboratories Agency—the principal vehicle for research into BSE—and the Institute of Food Research. The three key questions posed in the review were as follows: were the functions of the establishments needed; should they remain in the public sector; and should they retain their separate existence?
There was no sense in asking the questions unless there was the option, as implied by the title of the review, of expecting the answer to be no. The eventual answers arrived at by the Minister were yes in every case, except for the Agricultural Development Advisory Service and the Building Research Establishment, which were not research council institutes.
The questions had only to be asked, after the repeated reviews to which the research establishments had already been subjected, to demoostrate that they were the wrong questions. Rather than wasting time on the wrong

questions, I should like to ask some better questions and to suggest some better answers that the new Government will have to consider after the election.
In announcing plans for a food safety adviser, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food emphasised the adviser's freedom to comment publicly on policy. That is of course necessary, but unfortunately the problem is more serious than that. There is no problem with a certainty that has to be presented; the problem is how to handle uncertainty, genuine doubt and differences of opinion.
In an excellent review in Nature this week of John Lemon's book, "Scientific Uncertainty and Environmental Problem Solving", Tim O'Riordan says that there are four types of scientific uncertainty, raised by the following questions: what is the problem; how does one observe it; what are the odds; and what is one after, anyway?
Ministers need to understand the different kinds of uncertainty, because they unavoidably contribute to them. Framing the problem is not trivial. The question whether BSE can cross the species barrier was a good question at one stage but is not necessarily the right question today. The question whether human activity has any effect on climate may have been the right question in 1990, but is it the right question in 1997?
There is a further uncertainty about how one observes and models a system—how one sets up the logical structure within which to look for answers. The models may be biological systems on which it is possible to experiment in the laboratory, computer simulations within which the evidence is structured, or other combinations of evidence and analysis.
The odds, the statistical uncertainty, are the kind of uncertainty that people usually have in mind when they talk about risk analysis; but that is only one aspect of uncertainty, and not the most difficult.
The final uncertainty concerns what the Government are after anyway. It is not a matter only of the declared purposes or even the hidden agenda, but of the issues that inevitably arise when different parties consider the attitudes of other parties and the passage of time eventually resolves the situation.
Decision-theoretic uncertainty is not high-falutin' mathematics—the calculation of minimax solutions or expected utility, as one finds in the textbooks—but political reality; it may be sordid, but it is real. Is the Minister concerned with avoiding blame for outcomes within his period of office, as in an E. coli outbreak?
Obviously, everyone, including the Minister, is concerned with minimising the effects, but is it a matter in which the effects may be seen within a matter of weeks, as with E. coli; is it a matter of climate effects that will not be measurable for another 20 years; or is the Minister dealing not with reality as we ordinarily understand it, but with perceptions of reality in the public mind; not with trade, competitiveness and the current balance—the preoccupations of the Chancellor—but with sentiment in the foreign exchange markets?
The four kinds of uncertainty are not independent. Problem formulating, modelling, statistical uncertainty and decision-theoretic uncertainty all interact. Each has to be reconsidered in the light of changes in the others. Institutionally, each has to be provided for, possibly separately, but certainly differently; each has to be tackled, but each has to communicate with the institutions and the people tackling the others.
On the first kind of uncertainty—what is the problem?—anyone can join in, but the Minister has a duty at all times to give his view. Unless the Government's view of what the problem is comes out clearly, neither the public debate nor the practical work of the scientists will be given a clear steer about the direction in which they need to go.
Defining the problem is not a trivial exercise, and the formulation is likely to change as the problem develops and as people change their views. When the stakes are high, as they often are, and a "play safe" strategy is required, ethical and social consensus positions will rightly be pressed and the Minister must handle them.
On modelling uncertainty, a wide set of scientific issues arises. There will be analytically elegant models for which it is very difficult to produce, or even conceive of, serious empirical testing. The currently fashionable model is the market. The market will decide: it will decide the length of traffic jams on the M25, for example.
Then there will be the prescriptive advocacy of the farmers, of the oil-producing countries or of Greenpeace, defending preset conclusions; and there will be closed shops in particular scientific sub-disciplines. Scientific peer groups will have to fight it out, and be seen to fight it out, with the victor possibly changing when the problem changes.
Typically, the institutions pursuing their different models will need to be tested and compared by another kind of institution, able to join in the technical argument, but standing above it and not pontificating. It is unlikely that the market or an operational arm of Government would be able to fulfil the testing and comparison role.
With problems and methods better formulated and reviewed, the statistical and risk analysis can be pressed all the harder, but it is not the only sort of uncertainty. Here come the hazards of the million-to-one-against events that occur with monotonous regularity, revealing the misformulation of the problem specification in the first place. The need is not so much for an institution to do the risk analysis, because the problem formulators and modellers will want to do that themselves, but for a sufficiently wide audience to understand the argument and its limitations and dependencies, not just in general but in its application to the point at issue.
That leads on to the decision-theoretic uncertainty. What are the Minister, the media or the public after? It is a palpably obvious question in politics, but a contortionist's nightmare in game theory and decision theory. Does the Minister think that I think that he thinks that they think that there is nothing in it, so they would not move anyway? The limitations and the realities of politics need to be understood, as well as the balances of scientific uncertainty. The whole process of decision making becomes much more effective and efficient if sufficient people in government and politics can handle the different sorts of scientific uncertainty. That is why the work of the Select Committee is so important.
At the time of the last general election, I said that we had learnt nothing about methods of government since the 1960s. So I got Neil Kinnock' s and John Smith's agreement that the Office of Science and Technology should look, for the Government, at research on how Government should behave, as well as at Government research into how other people should behave.
A free-standing Office of Science and Technology—a pale shadow of the proposal—has come and gone. Now, of course, it is perfectly reasonable for the Opposition to accept present Government methods as a point of departure. But, whoever wins the election, the present methods are not sustainable. They must improve or, under the pressures of continuing social and technological change, they will deteriorate further.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in the debate. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), but I will not follow his analysis in detail. I certainly support what he had to say about my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), the Chairman of the Select Committee. I am a fairly new member—not necessarily the best behaved—but he has certainly been patient and an excellent Chairman. Sadly, I too am retiring at the next general election, but I certainly support the remarks of both hon. Members about the importance of an active Science and Technology Select Committee to the nation. I hope that my hon. Friend and anyone else in authority will take that into account.
I have two themes. The first is the effect of the prior options process in my local area and in my constituency, which contains many people who work in research institutes and who have an interest in what has been happening. If time permits, I shall comment on the importance of science and scientific research and the relationship between that and public attitudes to science. Again, that is relevant to the debate.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his response to my many letters. I was surprised that I had written so often to him about prior options. When I went through the papers, I realised how grateful I should be to him for his assiduousness in getting back to me quickly with replies on the various matters. I pay tribute to his commitment to science. He has written a number of articles recently. One was in the New Scientist and I have it before me. I agree with his general approach to these matters. He pays tribute in the article to Britain's excellent science base, saying:
With 1 per cent. of the world's population, Britain carries out 6 per cent. of its research, produces 8 per cent. of all science publications".
We certainly punch above our weight in science. I may have a little more to say about public attitudes at the end of my remarks.
I also support the commitment of my hon. Friend the Minister to education and higher education as it relates to the science base. After all, I spent 23 years teaching science in the schools—it is amazing, and I can hardly believe it now. When I hear or read about my hon. Friend paying tribute to the importance of science education, I can only say, "Hear, hear!"
I will not say much about the Select Committee report and the Government response to it as my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey has dealt with that in some detail and, basically, I agree with his remarks. I must simply pose the question, where is the memorandum on the rationale for the recent Government decisions? It is difficult to find all the information. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell me when it will appear in the Library. Indeed, it may even be there this morning, but I have not seen it.
The only other thing that I have to say about all this documentation before us this morning is to make an appeal. I have read the Select Committee report—I suppose I must


bear some responsibility for it—and the Government response. There is not much science in it. As a scientist, all this would be much more interesting if we could get a little more science into the paperwork that affects the administration and workings of science in this country. Other countries do so. I suspect that if, we read the equivalent documents in France or Germany, we would find more science in them. I spend a lot of time wondering why the Select Committee does not write much about science itself, and the Government must take their share of that criticism.
East Anglia has the fastest growing population in the United Kingdom and, as hon. Members will agree, it has an important scientific base, a high level of research and development and a skilled work force. There is no question, therefore, but that what is happening in Norwich in relation to science is important and the Committee has taken account of that. I welcome the prior options review as it affects my area at this stage, and I welcome the retention of the Central Science Laboratory in Norwich. That was the correct decision, and I welcome it. As I said, East Anglia has a high scientific profile and devotes a higher proportion of its gross domestic product to research and development than any other region.
In Norwich, although not in my constituency, we have the John Innes Centre, the Institute of Food Research and the Central Science Laboratory. Also, many people who work at the University of East Anglia have connections with research institutes in other parts of the country. Indeed, I have had some correspondence from Dr. Phillip Williamson, who is a constituent of mine, about the Centre for Coastal and Marine Sciences—another of the institutes affected by our discussions. Dr. Williamson also gave evidence to the Select Committee, and he highlighted the concerns in his letters to me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey said that concerns were raised by this process, which perhaps should not have been so acute, as I think hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree. Dr. Williamson referred to that in his correspondence. He talked about costs, staff morale and the fate of national data centres within Natural Environment Research Council laboratories. He raised a number of issues that are relevant. The scientists for whom he spoke were concerned about the process, but I think that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of that and will no doubt take note of it.
Because of my interest in institutions in Norwich, I have had representations from the National Farmers Union, which is concerned about the quality of research in agriculture and its continuance and from the trade unions. It is fair to say that all those representations were on the same theme and for that reason there is no need for me to elaborate too much. Their concerns were much the same.
I shall quote a letter that I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister some time in March last year:
Under the existing system, agriculture benefits from effective, multi-disciplinary research conducted within the framework of a national strategy.
The transfer of the John Innes Centre (and of other Research Council Institutes) to 'university ownership'—
I was not clear what that meant—
would run the risk of diminishing the level of scientific interchange and of exposing the work of such Research Council Institutes to the shorter-term priorities involved in seeking a financial return. The impetus for basic research would be weakened with less effective

spending and more duplication of facilities, research and skills. There would also be likely to be a deterrent effect upon the career structures of scientists in such centres given the prevalence of short-term contracts for university research staff.
I quote that to highlight the fact that the NFU was concerned about the prior options review. My quotation summarised its concerns.
My final local point concerns the university of East Anglia which has been interested in the process, not least because of its proximity to the John Innes Centre, the Institute of Food Research and the Central Science Laboratory. Unsurprisingly, I had considerable correspondence with the university's vice-chancellor, Dame Elizabeth Esteve-Coll. I do not know how this squares with the NFU's idea of university ownership or whatever it was. I did not quite follow the connection, so perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can enlighten me.
The theme that emerged from the correspondence was that the university was keen that there should be
a vision for the creation of a federation based on the Institutes and the University which could form the major UK centre for food science, food analysis and food safety.
Obviously, the university was concerned about the future of the CSL, with which I have already dealt, and with more general points, which I will not elaborate further. However, I think that the university will be happy with where we are now. The Government were sensible to let the matters stand where they are.
I hope that the debate that has been opened up between the university, the research institutes and the Government can be continued positively. I am trying to be brief, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister has picked up my point and can say that that will happen. If he can do that, there is no need for me to elaborate further my local points. [Interruption.] I am doing my best to be brief, but much has been happening in Norwich on this issue.
To summarise my remarks about prior options, I shall quote from the recent note produced by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, which states:
care must be taken if 'pulling up the plant too often to examine its roots' is not to affect the ability of the Research Councils to maintain the long-term vitality of the science and engineering base, by diverting management time and Science Budget funds to the inevitable legal and administrative tasks involved. The Government on the other hand wishes to reduce to a minimum work carried out in the public sector and sees the additional prior options process as a critical part of that policy.
That sums it up well. There have been real concerns and I support those that have been raised.
I do not have time to talk about the public understanding of science. I refer hon. Members to Melvyn Bragg's recent article in The Times. I had thought that the two cultures went out after CP Snow's books, which I read, but sadly they have not. Melvyn Bragg's article says it all. Our country still has a problem with its culture and attitudes to science. I would love to talk more about it but I shall not. I hope that people will read that article and that my hon. Friend the Minister will take note of the serious issues that it raises.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Unlike the previous three speakers, who are retiring, I hope to return to the House after the general election. I wish to place on record my grateful thanks for their work. I have found the


work on the Select Committee tremendously enjoyable. This debate has shown that there is complete agreement on the report.
I regard my work on the Science and Technology Select Committee as the must useful work that I do in this building, largely because the Committee approaches its work consensually. We take evidence, examine issues objectively and reach conclusions. Almost always, we find that, irrespective of our political affiliations, we agree. I contrast that with the work in this Chamber, where we are at one another's throats. The adversarial nature of debates diminishes our Parliament and does not lead to good government. If we had more of the Select Committee approach in the legislative process, this might be a much better governed country.
As recently as last night, the Government had the opportunity to refer the National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill to a Special Standing Committee, which would have enabled it to go through such a process. However, they refused. I hope that the new Government after the general election will consider the use of more Special Standing Committees so that we can get more agreement in the House and better government.
The hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) and my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) adequately outlined the Committee's concerns about the prior options review and the efficiency scrutiny, so I do not propose to go over that. I sound a slight note of disagreement with the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), who said we should do more science in our Committee. While this report is largely about the organisation and administration of science, we have recently conducted a major inquiry into human genetics, which was full of science and very interesting. We produced recommendations that the Government first rejected, and then accepted after we went back to them. That shows the Committee's effectiveness.
I was also treated to the delights of particle physics and astronomy during our inquiry into P Parc. Those areas of science are exciting. If more publicity was given to them, there would be more public interest in science and in our scientific endeavours, which are so important for our economic well-being.
The scrutiny was supposed to lead to greater efficiencies. Our report makes it clear that we do not feel that that was the result. The scrutiny has led to much disruption in a community which, as the hon. Member for Norwich, North said, the Minister accepted in his New Scientist article was one of the most cost-effective producers of research among G7 countries. If we are so cost-effective, we must wonder why it was necessary to go through the reviews, which have led not to efficiencies but to inefficiencies.
For example, the Medical Research Council has not been able to replace the director of its reproductive biology unit in Edinburgh, who left last year. The Central Science Laboratory stated:
It is regrettable that political considerations led to the retention of CSL's Food Science laboratory in Norwich when the clear business case was for it to be integrated"—
with the new facility at York—
releasing savings of over £1 million a year.
The efficiency scrutiny has wasted £1 million a year.

Mr. Dalyell: To reinforce my hon. Friend's comment, the decision led in Edinburgh to outrage in informed circles in the university.

Dr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for reinforcing my point.
The Institute of Arable Crops Research says that more than 60 per cent. of its staff have contracts of less than three years, compared with 10 per cent. in 1981. That means that staff spend much time applying for money and submitting proposals.
The submission to our inquiry from the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists states:
inefficiencies are on the increase as more and more scientists are drawn into procuring and managing contract funds and hunting for sponsorship deals.
That is not efficiency. Senior scientists can spend up to 40 per cent. of their time applying for grants, writing progress reports and reviewing other colleagues' proposals.
I hope that we will learn from the review and that we will not repeat the mistakes made in it. I want to spend a few minutes discussing the outcome and why we are happy with it. It means that most of the research institutes will remain in the public sector. Perhaps the main reason why privatisation did not occur was because of the problems surrounding the so-called crystallisation of pension rights. At present, in public bodies, there is no funded pension scheme—there is a pay-as-you-go pension scheme funded out of the research councils' budgets. Were the institutes to be privatised, they would have to move to a funded scheme and the Government would have to pay over a lump sum to fund the pension liabilities.
It is ironic that, in the long run, it makes no difference at all to the taxpayer whether there is a one-off lump sum of £100 million, which was the figure quoted, or there are annual contributions from the taxpayer that are, in effect, the financing cost of that £100 million. However, that was the major stumbling block, which highlights the nonsensical arrangements for public finance in this country. The Treasury rules basically say that, if the Government borrow money for investment, it is bad; whereas, if the private sector borrows for the same purpose, that is acceptable or even good. The issue of pensions shows the ridiculous nature of the public sector rules. The sooner we move to having a general government financing deficit, separate from borrowing for investment, the sooner we will have more effective public services.
It is quite wrong when the Government borrow for consumption. We currently have a public sector borrowing requirement of about £26 billion, which has been used to finance consumption—mainly to pay for the high costs of unemployment. That sort of borrowing is to be deplored, but, had the same sum been borrowed to invest in, for example, public transport, our universities, our science base or research and development, that would have been borrowing well spent and we would reap the rewards in terms of greater income. That issue must be addressed by a future Government, but there is a reluctance on both sides of the political divide to examine it.
I am being pressurised to wind up, so I shall draw my speech to a conclusion. All hon. Members recognise the importance of science to the well-being of this country's economy, but money has been wasted on the efficiency scrutiny. In their reply, the Government said that that was less than 1 per cent. of the budget, but that is £6.9 million which could have been used to reinstate the I per cent. cut in the science budget that has occurred this year. It could have reinstated the Faraday Partnership or contributed towards the foresight action programme for which aerospace companies are calling—they want funding from the Department of Trade and Industry to match the money that they are prepared to put in. We could have used the money to much better effect and used it for wealth-creating activities, rather than on the long period of disruption resulting from the scrutiny.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I shall speak briefly so that other colleagues will be able to contribute.
I add my tribute to the valedictory comments about our Chairman, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), who is to retire at the general election, and about my other colleagues who have given excellent service on the Committee. I also wish to mention by name Ms Eve Samson, our Clerk, who is always modest about what she does, but who has been able to co-ordinate all her staff and all our advisers. Our Committee takes notice of what advisers say, and Select Committee reports are much better for having taken good advice, instead of trying to grandstand politically.
It is interesting to note that colleagues on both sides of the House have been talking about privatisation or non-privatisation issues. I am an unreconstructed Thatcherite, and the Labour party—or at least its Front Benchers—seems to be trying to catch up with us. The history of almost all the institutions, universities and other learned bodies in this country shows that they are not purely public sector bodies. Most of them started in the private sector and all of them have a great deal of private sector involvement in their work, so to take the argument about privatisation to its extreme would be a waste of time.
In their response, the Government did not accept the Committee's criticism that the prior options review was conducted unsatisfactorily, but that is not specifically what we said. I want to make it clear that we were saying that prior options was yet another review, on top of half a dozen resulting from almost every organisation review. The point that I would like to make to Ministers and to anyone else who may be examining our science base is that we cannot continue to carry out review after review if we want staff to get on and do their job. That is the strongest criticism that the Committee tried to make.
It is not as though we have not already had reviews—the Committee would never say that it does not believe that we should always check whether we are getting value for money from our science base. It is the fundamental reviews of who will own the research institutes, how they will be organised and whether the structure will differ that are disruptive and destroy morale.
In my constituency, I have one of the bases of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and one of the fish laboratories. I also have two organisations that have been reviewed and changed: AEA Technology, which is now

fully in the private sector, and the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, which has undergone great changes, not least in location. Once both organisations had their establishment nailed down and understood where they were going, they went from strength to strength.
We should therefore be careful about continual reviews. We must instead set up a structure that tells people that, every year, they should review how they have done and make minor alterations to their organisation if necessary. We cannot say that we are going to check whether organisations are in the public or private sector, or tell them that they are going to be completely changed around, because that would destroy their work.
On the issue of blue sky research and who should pay for it, I sometimes annoy colleagues on the Committee who say, "This is something that should be done by the public sector." I tend to respond, "You cannot say that in absolute terms." The private sector has often worked wonders in making progress in blue sky research, and we should always be considering how to involve commerce and industry in our science base. Any scientist who says, "I shall never talk to the other side, because I am publicly funded and only do things that will add to the sum of human knowledge," is not gaining the benefits of the approach taken in the foresight programme, whereby people consider where blue sky research might lead, and what might emerge from it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) said—and it bears repeating—that the United Kingdom has 1 per cent. of the world's population, 6 per cent. of the science spend and 8 per cent. of science discoveries. I believe that the more scientists involve themselves with industry and commerce and with the rest of academia, the better it is for the science base.
This is an important issue. I know that the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), are both supportive of science, and, as a result, we can work together to the greater benefit of the British science base.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I join in the remarks directed at our Chairman, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw). When he reads them in a few years' time he might think that they sound a little like an obituary, but we shall be sad not to see him in the Chair at future sittings of the Committee, because he has made a tremendous contribution. He has held the Committee together in good humour, which is a credit to him.
I shall respond to some remarks of the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson). I believe that there has been considerable science in our activities. Our Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council inquiry is a good example: not everyone can say that they attended a physics lesson addressed by Sir Martin Rees. I feel humbled by that experience.
Some of our earlier reports have put science centre stage—especially our report on human genetics, which will become important in years to come. It is a great pity that the only remaining area of substantial disagreement between the Committee and the Government and the outside world is the issue of insurance. We shall return to that fundamental issue, which will be important to a future Government.
Let me illustrate my criticism of what has happened by considering the constituency of the hon. Member for Norwich, North and the Central Science Laboratory. It cannot be a coincidence that there is a correlation between the location of such public sector science laboratories and marginal parliamentary seats throughout the country.

The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): indicated dissent.

Mr. Miller: The Minister holds up his hands in horror at that suggestion. It is an extraordinary coincidence. Of course, having a scientific background, I draw no immediate conclusions from that, but other aspects suggest a lack of scientific objectivity in the process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) commented on pensions. Since the privatisation of Amersham International, a new tactic has been adopted in handling pension funds. In the House of Lords' report of 1993–94, "Priorities for the Science Base", there is a strong recommendation in paragraph 5.10:
The new Director General of Research Councils must be given real authority … which might include an unfettered right to publish his advice to the Minister".
As that is not really happening, one wonders whether there is scientific objectivity in the whole process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) spoke of the role of the Deputy Prime Minister. It is a great sadness that we do not have a Minister of senior Cabinet rank to fly the flag for science and technology.
From time to time, we see in the House the results of public sector science being abused in many ways. The classic example has been the handling of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis. It is a great pity that the Government have been unable to take a co-ordinated scientific lead based on a proper structure in a matter as important as that crisis, which has had an impact on every constituency. That would have been possible if a senior Minister had been in post. There remains a strong case for a member of the Cabinet taking responsibility for science. I do not decry the Minister, because he has worked hard in his role, but as a country we do not take the matter seriously enough.
The entire process that we have just gone through suffered from an element of predetermined intentions on the Government's part. It might have been a much better process if it had been carried out frankly and openly.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am grateful to my hon. Friends for allowing me time to speak. I associate myself entirely with the remarks that have been made about the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), and the brevity of my remarks in no way reflects a lack of esteem—I am simply short of time.
The Government response to our report states that the recent exercise has been good value for money. I do not think that any hon. Member believes that. We are told that the cost of carrying out the review was less than 1 per cent. of the total science budget. I do not think that anyone believes that figure.
I have a letter written to me by the director of one of the research institutes that have been involved in the survey. It is headed "Confidential," so I do not intend to divulge his name, but he says that he finds it
unbelievable that a Government driven so strongly by its perception of Private Sector excellence should ignore two important private sector financial considerations—the cost of time and the cost of lost output.
He continues:
I could write for ever about this and especially the nonsense figure cited as the financial cost of the exercise (I know what figure the BBSRC submitted and know that it took no account of Institute costs)"—
so the costs that have been cited are simply the costs of the review teams. The cost to the institutes and the time that senior people in the institutes spent conducting the reviews is time lost to science.
The real problem is that the Deputy Prime Minister clings to an outmoded notion that the private sector is always superior to the public sector, which is completely contrary to common sense. We have had review after review under the Government. Following the White Paper in 1992, there was a management review. Following the management review, a multi-departmental review was conducted. Following that, an efficiency scrutiny was conducted by the Prime Minister's adviser, Sir Peter Levene, and now we have had a prior options review—time-wasting indulgence indeed, and all to no avail, because there has been minimal disturbance to the institutes, apart from the complete waste of time in conducting the reviews.
The secrecy with which the reviews has been conducted is very regrettable, especially in this case. On 29 January 1997, when the results of the prior options review were announced, the Department of Trade and Industry issued a press release accompanying the Minister's answer to a question asked by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). One sentence of that press release read:
I shall expect the NERC, under the oversight of the Director General of Research Councils, to pursue the opportunities for rationalisation and restructuring identified by the reviews.
How can it do so if the reviews are not to be published? Many people in the research councils are wondering about that. I have a letter from one of them, who suggests that the reasoning is that the reviews constitute advice to Ministers, and that such advice is not to be published. That is absurd. How can research councils implement advice if it is not published?
The fate of the royal Greenwich observatories is still in the balance. A review began at least two years ago to consider the rationalisation of the observatories in Edinburgh and Cambridge. Staff there are still waiting for a response. The problems are connected not with pensions, but with the complex ownership of the various sites around the world. The staff want the universities to take over the running of the observatories, as the universities use them. That is an eminently sensible suggestion. With a little common sense, the issue could have been resolved months ago, which would have been the best possible outcome.

Mr. Adam Ingram: I echo the warm sentiments expressed towards the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), and pay a special tribute to my


hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), who is also standing down at the next election. He has been of considerable help to me in my role as the Front-Bench Member with responsibility for science and technology.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Pudsey and other members of the Science and Technology Committee on obtaining the debate, and on their contributions to it. Once again, the Committee has provided a powerful service to the House. Without the Committee's efforts and output, the House would probably not have been given any time by the Government to discuss science and technology issues, let alone the future of the public sector research establishments. I fully recognise and endorse the views expressed by the Chairman of the Committee about the Committee's role and, like him, I hope that it will have a long-term future. His work, we hope, will go on into the next Parliament and beyond.
The last time the House discussed science and technology was on 11 June 1996, as a result of the Labour party allocating time to the subject. The Select Committee's first report was published in July last year, and the report that we are considering was published in November.
The Government announced their decision on the 38 establishments under review on 29 January. One day before this one and a half hour debate, they published their response to the Select Committee's report. I list that history of events to highlight the wholly unsatisfactory way in which the Government have gone about their business in relation to an important part of the nation's science and research base.
The all-party Select Committee made the same criticism of the Government's approach in the report of 17 July, which stated:
We consider that the Department's policy on this matter is far from satisfactory".
The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) seems to forget that criticism, but I draw it to his attention.
The real reason for the secrecy—or, as others have called it, the lack of transparency—in the conduct of the exercise, and the delay in publishing the findings of the review, was that the Government were working to only one agenda: the privatisation of the Government research establishments and the research council institutes. Their every effort was targeted towards that objective.
Anyone who doubts that need only look at the oral evidence that Sir Peter Levene gave to the Select Committee on 13 November last year. He said:
When Ministers considered the report on the first tranche of reviews in May they decided that they needed some further advice on certain practical issues in relation to the privatisation option which they were considering.
Sir Peter went further. The Chairman of the Committee asked him:
Could you confirm that you have not been asked, in relation to the Prior Options Review, to consider the effects of any changes on the science base itself?
Sir Peter replied:
That is not something we are looking at, that is correct.
Sir Peter was telling the Committee what the entire scientific community suspected—that the review was an off-loading exercise and a means by which to cut further the public science base. It was concerned not with quality,

but with dogma. It took the Government from May until January—nine months—to realise that they had got it wrong all along.
The Government were clearly frightened to allow full parliamentary scrutiny, through debate, of their antipathy towards the public sector research establishments. They knew that to allow proper examination of Sir Peter Levene's review would bring into the public domain the almost universal criticism levelled against the Government in the matter. The Confederation of British Industry, important trade bodies such as the Food and Drink Federation, the Royal Society, the royal academies and the learned institutes all voiced their trenchant criticism of the Government's approach.
The Institute of Biology said:
Whenever the Government does not get the right result it wants from a review, it sets up a further one with the apparent intention of privatising and cutting back on services.
The Royal Society stated:
the programme is being driven by a generic belief in the merits of privatisation, without adequate regard to the strategic role of publicly funded research in promoting the national good.
I could go on listing criticism after criticism of the Government's approach to the reviews. All are documented in the minutes of evidence submitted to the Select Committee. They make salutary reading for anyone involved in policy framing and policy making.
The history of the review process makes sorry reading for the Government. In June 1995 The Guardian carried a detailed story showing that the Government were split from top to bottom on the issue, and they probably still are. The story was based on letters leaked to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). I shall read an extract from the article:
The Government's response to a scrutiny of publicly funded research by Sir Peter Levene, the Prime Minister's efficiency adviser, was to be released last week alongside the report, Forward Look: Future Priorities for Government Research, and a Department of Trade and Industry report on industrial competitiveness.
But the letters show that a dispute between William Waldegrave, the Agriculture Minister, Michael Portillo, the Employment Secretary, Michael Heseltine, Trade and Industry Secretary, and David Hunt, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, has stopped the exercise.
A leaked letter from John Horam, the junior science minister, to James Paice, the junior employment minister, says that David Hunt wants yet another review of research councils and laboratories before final decisions are taken next year.
The article continues:
Mr Portillo and Mr Heseltine, who favour quick decisions and privatisation of establishments—including the Health and Safety Laboratory—are objecting to further delays.
Mr Heseltine signalled his dissent by announcing that the National Engineering Laboratory, AEA Technology … and the Laboratory of the Government Chemist were to be sold without further reviews.
Mr Waldegrave, who set up the original review, has backed Mr Hunt, saying he would prefer a minimum review concentrating on laboratories, which had not been examined before.
There we have it. Those who are now without real influence in the Government favoured a more long-term approach, and those who would be king after the election—the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo)—favoured a full-scale privatisation of the laboratories and institutes. It is therefore right for us to warn the thousands of scientists


who work in those establishments to beware of a Tory fifth term. The Government have merely deferred their decisions on privatisation, not abandoned them. Anyone in doubt about that should read the speech given yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the right-wing Centre for Policy Studies. He said:
The long march of privatisation goes on.
In their drive for ideological purity, the Government spared no expense in relation to the prior options review. As the Minister knows, I tabled a series of questions seeking to elicit the total cost of the exercise. The answers—95 in all, from the various Government Departments—varied from the helpful to the obscure. One thing was clear, however. Including the cost of the review of the royal observatories, more than £4 million was raided from the already hard-pressed science budget to pay for it. As other hon. Members have commented, that figure is probably at the lower end of the true cost incurred.
When I put questions to the President of the Board of Trade on the reviews of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council institutes, I was informed that it was not possible to quantify the costs incurred by the several Government Departments involved in the prior options procedures without incurring disproportionate cost.
That answer was given to me by the Minister for Science and Technology. He was telling me and the House that his Department was working in the dark about the real cost of the exercise that he had initiated. It makes a mockery of the Minister's claim that the entire exercise was about enhancing the nation's science base. That could not be the case, because he did not know the cost-benefit analysis to which he was working, he was unaware of the costs involved, and providing benefit to the science base was not part of the exercise. Sir Peter Levene admitted as much to the Science and Technology Committee.
We have come to the end of the single-track road on which the Government have been travelling for the past few years in their obsession to privatise the Government research establishments and institutes. It has been costly, wasteful in time for all concerned, and demoralising for the people who work in those establishments.
The many thousands of scientists who work in laboratories have faced an uncertain future for far too long. The Government will now claim that what they announced on 29 January is effectively the last word on this subject. Those who understand how the Government work will not believe them. They will know that powerful Ministers, such as the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, have only one objective in mind: the wholesale sell-off of public sector research establishments.
The Government's announcement on 29 January was no more or less than blatant political expediency. A fifth term of Tory Government will bring the privateers back to the laboratory doors, and the whole exercise will be re-initiated.
The Labour party has made it clear—I re-emphasise the commitment—that a Labour Government will fully recognise the importance of Government research establishments and research institutes as part of the nation's essential publicly funded science base. The

PSREs are a major national resource and a source of crucial research expertise involved in long-term research activity in collaboration with universities and industry. They have a vital role to play in offering independent, impartial advice to Government.
In these days of BSE, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, salmonella and E. coli 0157, the PSREs can contribute to the public good in a way that is not wholly open to the private research sector in its own right. Industry recognises that, as do the royal societies, academies and learned institutes.
In its response to the report by the Science and Technology Committee, which we are considering today, the Royal Society of Chemistry states:
The Royal Society of Chemistry recognises the importance of safeguarding open public access to the information of PSREs as a key point of principle in the public interest.
The integrity and accessibility of the vast reserves of 'core data' within the existing PSREs should be preserved".
A Labour Government will provide such an environment, for the betterment of our nation's science base and the public good.

The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): To an extent, this has been a bit of a wake, and I am sorry about that. This may be the last science debate in this Parliament, but it is certainly the last appearance in this Parliament in a science debate by my hon. Friends the Members for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) and for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), and the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), all of whom have contributed enormously over the years to the understanding of and enthusiasm for science, engineering and technology in this place.
I add my voice to the tributes that have already been paid to the very existence of the Select Committee. I hope that the valuable work that it has done in this Parliament—I note carefully the report on human genetics, for example—will continue in the next Parliament, if Parliament decides, as I hope it will, that a Science and Technology Select Committee should continue.
I have only a few minutes to respond to some of the serious points raised in the debate. I do not share the worry of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey that the reviews were hasty and perhaps ill targeted. They were part of a continuing process. Naturally, they had to apply to the research council institutes, which account for about £220 million out of the £690 million expenditure. Some of the research councils have clearly indicated the benefit that has come from their work. The National Environment Research Council has made a clear statement to that effect, and I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that, quite often, such reviews make it easier to understand the relationship between a research council or institute, and the definition of the mission statement.
Several hon. Members, not only my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey but my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North and the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), talked about openness. As a Minister, I have always been available for questioning across the Floor of the House. I wish that I were questioned more, because I enjoy being at the


Dispatch Box and answering questions. There is no lack of desire on my part to be open. Obviously, I cannot table questions; I can only appear if the questions are tabled, so perhaps colleagues will think about how they could table a few more to me.
We have tried to make consultations as wide as possible. Naturally, the review groups were very much associated with the sponsoring Department. The explanatory memorandums have been, or will be, placed in the Library. Indeed, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food placed one there today about its decisions of 9 December. Those are part of a general attempt to ensure that we understand why a particular process has taken place.
I shall not comment on ministerial advice, because, as the House well understands, that matter has wider implications. One point that I do pick up, however, is that in no sense was I anxious to undermine the morale of those who work within the science base. I recognise the importance of the work done in the research establishments and the excellence of the scientific achievements. In some cases, when objectively reviewed, some institutes have shown themselves to be up with the best of any in the United Kingdom. For example, the figures at the Babraham Institute are extremely convincing. Several of the reviews made it clear that research is best carried out in the public sector. I welcome that outcome, so there is no pre-ordained message.
I was saddened by the speech of the hon. Member for East Kilbride, who, having found that the reviews came up with decisions with which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) decided that she was happy, had to find a different excuse for the fact that the outcome was not so distasteful, and decided that it had something to do with split Governments, frit Governments and electioneering. It was not the most impressive contribution to the debate, although I pay full tribute to the interest of—I nearly said my hon. Friend; perhaps I will—my hon. Friend in the science base. Unfortunately, it did not extend to his speech today.
Other matters of great importance have been raised. I listened closely to the comments by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South on risk assessment. I have made two speeches: one to the British Association for the Advancement of Science; another to the parliamentary Science and Technology Committee, on risk assessment in its broadest sense. I share many of the hon. Gentleman's concerns. It is almost impossible for a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box with a degree of certainty about what often confuses scientists.
It is also difficult for a Minister—I hope that I shall criticise none of my colleagues—to come to the Dispatch Box and say, "I shall do what the scientists tell me," because scientists may say different things, or their comments may have different orders of magnitude. In those circumstances, we need a wide and public debate, attempting to get the public to understand the degree of risk involved. That is why I proposed a sort of Richter

scale of risk, so that there is at least an objective benchmark when we hit crises such as BSE, E. coli and longer-term matters such as the debate on climate control.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, South made one comment which justified the reviews, although that was not why he made it. He said that, in many cases, the questions will change over time. I accept that, but the process of how one discovers the answers may have to change over time. A particular establishment may therefore need to adapt its mission statement or look again at how it is configured.
The Office of Science and Technology's role in Government has now been well established by its success within the DTI, with enormous improvements in the lines of communication and delivery mechanisms. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North mentioned, quite rightly, the work of the Central Science Laboratory at Norwich. He also mentioned the John Innes Centre and the Institute of Food Research. He has been a tireless champion for research at Norwich. I confirm that I hope that open discussions will continue with the university of East Anglia on how to create a centre of research excellence, particularly in food. I underline and confirm his comments, particularly about the strength of the science base. We should make much more of it.
The hon. Member for Selly Oak said that the prior options reviews cost £6.9 million, which is way out. Even the hon. Member for East Kilbride mentioned £4.3 million. The direct cost of prior options reviews is some £1.5 million. Obviously, other factors have been taken into account—for example, with ADAS and moneys connected with the conversion to next steps agencies, which are not directly relevant to the process. Whatever the figures—I stick to £1.5 million—they are tiny in relation to the overall quest for efficiency out of a spend of £690 million. No Science Minister can ignore that fact.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) said that there are too many reviews. I draw his attention to my announcement, and that of the President of the Board of Trade as the Cabinet Minister responsible for science, that we shall now revert to quinquennial reviews, although we will look very carefully at the management tasks that have been given to the various research institutes. They have been informed that they can put them in place.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston talked about how the House responds to some of these crises, and mentioned predetermination. There was no predetermination, and that brings me to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram). Government have a duty to look at the health of the science base. This country has a science base of which it can be proud. Science base expenditure has risen by more than 15 per cent. in the past 10 years. That is a great achievement. British science is well recognised throughout the world as being excellent. We punch above our weight, partly because of the concern of the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We must now move on to the next debate and to the Chairman of the Public Service Committee.

Ministerial Accountability and Responsibility

[Relevant documents: Second report from the Public Service Committee of Session 1995–96, on Ministerial Accountability and Responsibility (HC 313), the Government's response thereto (HC 67 of Session 1996–97) and first report from the Public Service Committee of Session 1996–97, on Ministerial Accountability and Responsibility (HC 234).]

11 am

Mr. Giles Radice: As you rightly say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I speak this morning in my capacity as Chairman of the Public Service Select Committee. As a Back Bencher, I remain convinced, as I was on 26 February 1996, when the House debated the Scott report, that Ministers should have resigned over that committee's findings.
When Sir Richard Scott came before the Select Committee, he was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright):
Was Parliament denied information that Parliament constitutionally ought to have been provided with?
Sir Richard replied:
I think so, yes.
When asked:
Did something constitutionally improper happen?
Sir Richard said:
Yes, I think it did and I said so.
In the event, the Government won the Scott debate by one vote and Ministers survived. I was always clear in my mind that our role in the Public Service Select Committee should not be to re-run the resignation debate; rather, it was to try to learn lessons from the Scott report and also from the Lewis affair, which had prompted our original investigations—lessons for ministerial responsibility and accountability and how it was to be defined and exercised in the modern world of a powerful Executive, the reformed civil service with new next steps agencies and, of course, rapidly changing events both at home and abroad.
We published our main report on ministerial accountability and responsibility last July. I thank my colleagues, many of whom are here today, our specialist advisers, our Clerk and our staff for their very valuable contribution. I know that hon. Members who are on the Select Committee and others wish to speak in the debate, so I shall summarise the main recommendations of the report.
With respect to definition, the Committee rejected the distinction that Sir Robin Butler attempted to draw when he came before the Scott inquiry between accountability and responsibility—in other words, that Ministers are always accountable to Parliament for the work of their Department but are not necessarily responsible for everything that happens in those Departments. We point out that it is not possible to distinguish clearly an area in which a Minister is personally responsible, and liable to take blame, from one in which he or she is merely constitutionally accountable. That is why we concluded:
Ministerial responsibility is not composed of two elements with a clear break between the two. Ministers have an obligation to Parliament which consists in ensuring that government explains its

actions. Ministers also have an obligation to respond to criticism made in Parliament in a way that seems likely to satisfy it—which may include, if necessary, resignation.
However, as a Committee we are not obsessed, except in one respect to which I shall return, with the question of resignation. In fact, we tended to agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) that Parliament undervalues accountability, and that proper and vigorous scrutiny in accountability may be more important to Parliament's ability to correct error than forcing resignations.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I hope not to use the time of the House again in this important debate.
My hon. Friend made the important distinction between accountability and responsibility, but does he agree that it is the responsibility of Ministers to order the arrangements in their Departments in such a way that correspondence—including that from statutory bodies—on certain matters is drawn to their attention, when necessary? If that does not happen, Ministers are irresponsible in the organisation of their Department. There may be cases where correspondence on important matters sent to the Minister is not received by the Minister personally.

Mr. Radice: My hon. Friend gives an important example that shows why it is so difficult to make the distinction that Sir Robin Butler was trying to make, and emphasises the point that Ministers are responsible for the organisation of their Departments. If the organisation does not work effectively, and prevents a Minister from knowing about things that he should have known about, the Minister is responsible for that.
When we considered the issue of accountability, it seemed extraordinary to us that the only explicit statement on how Ministers are expected to discharge their obligation to Parliament appears in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", which is not only, as Professor Hennessy told us, in his usual witty way,
a mix of immutable principles with housekeeping practicalities",
but very much a prime ministerial or Executive document. I congratulate the Prime Minister on publishing that document, but that is not good enough. If Parliament is to make Ministers more accountable, we need a parliamentary resolution that sets out in clear and simple terms what we ourselves expect of Ministers.
Our report attempts to provide such a resolution. Indeed, if our report has a big idea, it lies in our resolution on ministerial accountability. As the House knows, the Government have accepted the value of our idea and issued their own draft, which they have been discussing with the other main parties in the House. Meanwhile, the Public Service Select Committee has considered the Government's draft. As we say in our follow-up report, which we managed to publish in time for the debate—I congratulate those who were responsible for that—we believe that the Government's draft resolution represents
a useful and important step forward".
The resolution has four main principles. First, it sets out a Minister's duty to account to Parliament for policies, decisions and actions of Departments and agencies. Secondly, it lays on Ministers the duty of openness, limited only by statute and by the code of practice on access to Government information. That is something on


which we have insisted, and I congratulate the Government on accepting what we said on that point. Thirdly, the resolution lays on Ministers the duty to give accurate and truthful information to the House. Any inadvertent error should be corrected at the earliest opportunity. If Ministers knowingly mislead the House, we expect them to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister.
We had a slightly different formula. We said that Ministers should resign forthwith. We are prepared to accept the Government's formula, because it is the case that Ministers offer their resignation to the Prime Minister.
The fourth principle is the obligation on civil servants to be as open as possible with Select Committees, as set out in the civil service code. I congratulate the Government on accepting our formulation. It is important to draw in civil servants: we are not proposing that they should be directly accountable to Parliament, but it is their responsibility to be as open as possible in their dealings with Select Committees and with Members when, under ministerial direction, they reply to their letters and meet them.
I congratulate the Government on their response to the Committee's report. However, I emphasise the need for speed. It is essential that a resolution along the lines proposed by the Government should be passed before the dissolution of Parliament and the general election.
The Liberal Democrats feel very strongly that agencies should be directly accountable to Select Committees. In the Government's formulation, agencies are mentioned only in passing; they were not mentioned at all in ours, although in our report we made several recommendations. We said that, in practice, the House had already moved beyond the conventional position, and that agencies and agency chiefs were directly involved in giving information to Parliament with only formal involvement of Ministers. In my judgment, the House would not want to give up that formal involvement, because many hon. Members appreciate the fact that they can go to Ministers if they are not content with the answers they receive from agencies. We may move beyond that in time, but we are not in that position at the moment.
The Committee has said that the Osmotherly rules should be amended to indicate a presumption that Ministers will agree to requests by Select Committees for agency chief executives to give evidence. As yet, we have no example of agency chiefs who have not come before a Select Committee when it has called for them to appear. We have also said that agency chief executives should give evidence to Select Committees on matters delegated to them in framework documents, and that that should be put in the Osmotherly rules. They do precisely that in practice.
The Lewis issue concerned the possible confusion between the responsibility of Ministers and that of agency chief executives. The Committee said, first, that there should be far greater clarity of roles; the role of Ministers and that of agency chiefs should be clearly defined with respect to the responsibilities in framework documents.
Secondly, we said—a number of hon. Members were responsible for this point, including some who are present and who, I hope, will speak later—that we should consider whether politically sensitive agencies should be established on a statutory basis. It is true that the ability to

question Ministers about what happens in those statutory agencies would be lost, but the agency chiefs could come before and be directly accountable to Select Committees, which is what Liberal Democrats believe should apply to all agencies. What we would lose on the swings, we would gain on the roundabouts. We want the Government to consider that possibility.
I understand, and to some extent sympathise with, the Liberal Democrats' position, but it would be a tragedy if we failed to get this resolution through. The report concludes:
We recommend that the Government should continue to seek cross-party approval for its draft Resolution, but we believe that failure to obtain the support of all parties should not prevent the House agreeing to a Resolution before the dissolution of this Parliament.
I want to make two short points about how the House could enforce accountability. The Committee considered a number of models, such as the Nolan model, which proposes a commissioner. We saw a possible role for the parliamentary ombudsman, but we preferred the idea of the Table Office publishing a list of the questions that had been blocked, which could be considered by a Select Committee—perhaps the Public Service Committee—to see what lessons could be learnt and whether the rules on the provision of information were being correctly applied.
The Committee believes that the Select Committee system should be strengthened. We must ask ourselves whether we have kept up with the revolution in government. In her evidence, Kate Jenkins referred to the Government as
a modern organisation dealing with a rather old-fashioned form of accountability.
Another witness talked about
the embarrassment of informational riches".
We receive an awful lot of information, but are we making as much sense of it as we ought?
I am glad that the Liaison Committee is examining the role of Select Committees in its end-of-term report, and I hope that, at the beginning of the next Session, it will take a longer look at that. The Liaison Committee should consider whether we have enough staff, whether there should be a closer relationship with the National Audit Office—I know that there are problems about that—and whether we should build a more proactive and positive relationship with agencies. I am sure that there are other questions that should be considered.
The Public Service Select Committee, in its very short life, has proved itself. It has considered civil service matters, but it has also had to deal with the aftermath of the Scott report and with constitutional issues. I see its future developing partly along those lines, rather like the Swedish select committee that we saw.

Mr. Hartley Booth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way during his concluding sentences. In reviewing the various matters that the Committee considered last year, particularly the supervision and checking of the accountability of Ministers, would he refer to the wider ambit of the ombudsman in Sweden?

Mr. Radice: There is no doubt that the ombudsman plays a much greater role in Sweden, as indeed does the audit officer, who is an important figure, although that


may not be his correct title. In Sweden, various bodies enforce non-parliamentary accountability and protect the individual. Clearly, we need to consider that as well.
In conclusion, I repeat that we must get a resolution on accountability through the House of Commons. We must show the public that proper lessons have been learnt from the Scott report, and that some good has come out of those events.

Sir Terence Higgins: This is an important, if somewhat esoteric, debate for both the House of Commons and the public at large. I am sure that it is right for the Liaison Committee to use one of its scarce slots on Wednesday mornings to provide the House with the opportunity to debate the issues to which the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) referred.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the work of his Committee. He served a long and distinguished apprenticeship as Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. I agree with him that the new Committee, which he chairs, is making an important contribution. I congratulate also the Minister responsible for public service—also an alumnus of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service—on the response that the Government have given to the various recommendations in the Committee's reports. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for North Durham that the resolution that he proposes should be passed during the current Parliament. We should seek to resolve the matter now rather than waiting until the next Parliament, when not all of us will necessarily be here.
This is a difficult subject to "mug up". It has an enormous history, which I shall say something about before taking up one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for North Durham about the Liaison Committee, which I have the honour of chairing. The history to which I refer is largely lost in the mists of time, but the matter came to public attention way back in 1954, on 20 July, when statements were made by the then Home Secretary about the famous Crichel Down case.
The myth grew up that a Minister had resigned—as Ministers ought in such cases—because something had gone wrong in his Department. Although the Minister had known nothing about it, because not he but his officials had been involved, it was nevertheless right for him to resign. As Professor Griffiths and others have amply demonstrated, however, this was a myth: the Minister in fact resigned for an entirely different reason—the fact that he had been involved in a row in the Conservative party's 1922 Committee. When I first arrived in the House, the myth was pretty widespread—and, in some ways, a rather good myth, as it endorsed the idea that Ministers should resign regardless of whether they knew about things if they had a responsibility to know about them.
None the less, the myth was a myth. It was very much to the fore again in 1985–86, when the Treasury and Civil Service Committee decided to look into the question of ministerial accountability. Rather to the Committee's surprise, it had hardly become involved in the issue when the Westland affair developed, and we were inundated with a spate of Committee reports. The Treasury Committee's seventh report, published at the beginning of

the affair in 1985–86, was followed by a Defence Committee report; there was then a report from the Liaison Committee—the only one, I believe, to deal with a specific subject—and another Treasury Committee report. During all that there were innumerable Government responses, none of them very satisfactory. Important distinctions were made, relating to both ministerial accountability and responsibility and the position of officials—the distinction between officials' conduct and their actions.
Much of the report to which the hon. Member for North Durham referred is concerned not only with ministerial accountability and responsibility but with the position of officials. I believe that, following what I can only describe as the negotiations that have taken place between the Public Service Committee and the Minister, we have reached something of a modus vivendi with regard to officials. One question has been largely resolved: if the conduct of an official is in question, the Government, as employer, are responsible for their employees and for ensuring that they too are accountable to the House, through the Minister. I am glad about that, because the issue is not easy. I believe that the distinction that has been made is now perfectly workable.
The Public Service Committee recently published a report, which was followed by a Government response and then a response to that from the Committee. While that was going on, the new Osmotherly rules were published, which was something of an advance in that the position was rationalised. Paragraph 18 of the Public Service Committee's first report deals with accountability in Select Committees, a subject that concerns me as Chairman of the Liaison Committee. It recommends that the Liaison Committee should
inquire into a number of aspects of the work of Select Committees, including their relationship with the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee"—
a point on which the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) may wish to comment—and adds:
Although the Liaison Committee may be unable to undertake a full-scale inquiry in the little time that remains before the dissolution, we welcome the steps it has taken to assemble information".
I do not wish to breach Select Committee confidentiality, but it is well known that normally—although not invariably—the Liaison Committee produces an end-of-Parliament report, and I hope that it will be able to do so on this occasion.
I am a little doubtful about the Public Service Committee's broad recommendation that we should look into the operation of the whole Select Committee system. It is true that there was an inquiry by the Procedure Committee back in 1990, but an appraisal of how clever we have been may lead to a feeling that we are judge and jury in our own cause, and such an investigation should probably be carried out by someone else. I hope, however, that we can take up the issues raised by the Public Service Committee, and that—although I must not prejudge what will happen—the individual reports that normally form an appendix to the Liaison Committee's report will provide a firmer basis for an examination of the way in which the Select Committee system can be improved. I hope that that will be done before the end of the current Parliament, and will provide a guide for the future development of the Select Committee in the next one.
There is always a problem of continuity, not least because we have no mechanism to ensure that Select Committees are established without the delays that we have seen in the last three Parliaments. As I shall not be able to perform such a role, I hope that a group of existing Chairmen, returning in the next Parliament, will press strongly for such a development. I also hope that a system can be devised to deal with each of the issues raised by the Public Service Committee—for instance, the question of the NAO and the accountability of agencies.
These are deep waters. It is difficult to discuss such issues on one's feet, rather than writing about them in a report. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham on the way in which he has spelt them out. I believe that, although more work remains to be done, we have made considerable progress on the question of officials' accountability and, to a greater extent, that of ministerial accountability.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. I hope that, despite the divisions that may exist between, say, the Liberal party and other parties on the precise content of the resolution, it will be tabled before the House rises for the general election. We want to get it out of the way and firmly on the record, so that, whatever the result of the election, the House will have made real progress on an important matter.
Select Committees now play a fundamental role in the responsibility of Ministers to the House. As we all know, in party debates across the Floor of the House it is very difficult to pin down a Minister; at Question time the subject changes from moment to moment, and there are very few supplementary questions. That is not the same ball game as appearing before a Select Committee on an all-party basis, a process that can go on for two hours or more. It is important for us to get the whole of that side of it right, and I believe that the progress made in the succession of Select Committee reports and Government responses gives us hope that matters will be improved in the future.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir. T. Higgins). His tenure as Chairman of the Liaison Committee provides a model for his successors, and we look forward to his principles being copied throughout the next Parliament. I am concerned with the notions of ministerial accountability, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) has introduced this matter, because it needs to be settled, at least to some degree, before the end of this Parliament.
Accounting officers, usually the permanent secretaries, come before us in the Public Accounts Committee. Sometimes they provide notes of dissent to the PAC. We had a notable case in the Pergau dam affair. The permanent secretary put in his note of dissent—I believe that it is called a letter of direction now—saying that he disagreed with the expenditure of public money. A total of £234 million was spent on the basis of a two-day visit to Malaysia to see the dam site. That was clearly inadequate. It was discovered by the PAC only because the National Audit Office had investigated the matter. If it had not, it would not have been discovered.
When I gave evidence to the Nolan committee, I said that I had requested that all notes of dissent should come to the PAC. That was finally agreed only days before

I gave evidence to the Nolan committee, so now I get those notes of dissent via the NAO and receiving them is of great importance. Quite a few have come to my attention.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham dealt with the relationship between the Department and agencies. That relationship varies widely. We have one extreme example. Sir Michael Partridge, the permanent secretary to the Department of Social Security, came before the PAC on a number of occasions to deal with the Benefits Agency, whose head was Michael Bichard, a person of great standing and great ability; yet Sir Michael Partridge dealt with all the questions—it was as though it had not become an executive agency.
The Committee was happy with Sir Michael doing that, because he obviously knew exactly what he was talking about. He had all the details at his finger tips. That is the normal position, although one would not expect it to be, so there are variations between the relationship between such executive agencies and the Department. I am not against a certain amount of flexibility, but perhaps it would be better, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham rightly points out, if some of this were set out.
There are serious gaps in accountability, particularly in non-departmental public bodies, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) for the way in which he has reacted, which follows on from the arguments that some of us have been putting forward. He spelled it out in much greater detail, which I welcome. Non-departmental public bodies, or quangos as they are generally called, now spend about £17 billion of public funds each year. The Comptroller and Auditor General audits only half of the 300 quangos which fall into that category. The rest are audited by private firms appointed by Secretaries of State and include bodies with substantial sums of money, such as the Housing Corporation and the Legal Aid Board, which each spend more than £1 billion a year.
Where the CAG audits such bodies, there is obviously open accountability because reports are produced, which come before the PAC. The CAG reports to Parliament. We know that his independence is guaranteed. By contrast, private firms are appointed by Departments and report primarily to them. It is a matter for the Department whether the audit covers matters that are of particular interest to Parliament and the PAC, such as propriety in particular and the proper conduct of public business, which has concerned the PAC for a long time.
I and the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), the Chairman of Public Accounts Commission, recommended that the CAG should audit such bodies and we produced a memorandum to that effect. Up to now, the Government have not agreed to that recommendation. We need to have the general principle accepted that important national public bodies should be audited by the CAG. That could be done by his appointment to all new quangos, as well as to existing ones, whenever their statutes come up for renewal. We therefore hope that there can be a move in that direction, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland has suggested.
As for other bodies, accountability systems of housing associations, grant-maintained schools as well as training and enterprise councils have developed piecemeal without proper scrutiny of public funds and something needs to


be done to ensure that there is proper accountability there in the way that we wish. Lord Nolan saw great merit in the CAG being granted inspection rights over all public expenditure. As I have said, in a memorandum to the Government, the right hon. Member for Horsham and I recommended that that could best be provided by attaching conditions to any public funding.
Up to now, the Government have not agreed to that recommendation. They consider that the independent status of bodies such as housing associations is important. In the past, however, Parliament has recognised the need for the CAG to have access to independent bodies and legislation does provide for him to have access to grant-maintained schools, universities and institutions of further and higher education. The NAO's work in the education sector is supported by the Public Accounts Committee, but we need greater assurance that bodies within such sectors spend public funds entrusted to them efficiently and properly.
On contractors—people who undertake work for Government Departments and other bodies—we need to provide Parliament with an assurance that Government Department business in private hands has been conducted with probity and proper care of public money. The NAO needs to be able to scrutinise records held by private contractors. There is nothing revolutionary in that, because at present the European Court of Auditors has such rights of access. Where European money is involved, it can go to those contractors and see the records, but the NAO, acting on our behalf, does not have the same right. That is absurd, and the right hon. Member for Horsham and I put the memorandum to Government asking for the NAO to have that right.
I look forward to hearing the response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, who I know agrees with many of my arguments. I hope that, following the next election, we shall see a move in this direction, to the benefit of accountability in government generally.

Sir Peter Lloyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) on his skilful and common-sense chairmanship of our Committee and on the concise and forward-looking way in which he introduced our reports in his speech. Like him, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—I am glad, as I am sure that the rest of the Committee is, to have such distinguished and experienced endorsement—I believe that it is important for the House to adopt the resolution speedily.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been brokering this with the political parties—I am glad that he has been doing that and doing it so well—but not because Ministers need to be told that they must tell the House the truth; they know that, and they take trouble to do so—a belief that reading Scott generally confirms rather than undermines. No the resolution is important because it makes it clear that in future the relationship is governed by parliamentary authority and not by Executive convention. That establishes an important principle on which Parliament will no doubt choose to build as occasions and necessity arise.
The resolution will also reinforce Scott in the sense of obliging Ministers and officials to consider with greater care the completeness and the impression left by the answers that they give. That is not easy, because the truth is many-faceted, and replies must be concise. When I was a Minister answering a parliamentary question about the number of escapes from Group 4 escorts, I gave the figures as accurately as possible and, of course, in the form requested. The Opposition gleefully found the answer satisfactory. Group 4, however, rightly felt ill used, because I had not said in the answer something that was also certainly true—that it had lost far fewer prisoners than the police and prison service escorts who had previously provided the service. Group 4 was not convinced that that direct and unadorned answer, which was fully accurate in response to the question, was other than very misleading. I think that Group 4 had a point, but the Opposition thought that the answer was fine.
I believe that the Government's version of the resolution is rather better than our Committee's original suggestion. The Government's version places a positive requirement on Ministers, whereas our's was negatively rooted in the old concept of contempt of Parliament. The effect is not very different, but the wording in the Government's version has enabled them, with some deftness, to emphasise that civil servants are accountable to Ministers—not to the House—by placing the duty squarely upon Ministers to ensure that civil servants give full and accurate information when the latter appear before the House.
I know that some hon. Members are unhappy that civil servants' accountability remains indirect and through their Ministers, but—like the hon. Member for North Durham—I believe that the resolution is a very real advance. I know that some hon. Members—not only those confined to the Liberal party—believe that civil servants should appear on their own account and answer questions autonomously, including their criticisms of and hopes for the current and future policies of their Departments.
I do not believe that that approach would be right or workable, or that it would enhance real accountability to the House, because officials are not responsible for determining policy, although they may and do heavily influence it. Such an approach would certainly destroy trust and working relationships, which are essential to the smooth running of a Department, and it would provide a club with which political opponents could beat Ministers over the head, without making them or their Departments one jot more accountable to Parliament.
I appreciate that the proponents of direct accountability of civil servants are thinking primarily of the role of agency chief executives—who often appear before Select Committees, and who have operational responsibility for running the agency formally delegated to them. It is argued that they are not traditional civil servants but have, it is said, an independent command and thus should be independently accountable to their Select Committee. However, I am sure that that is a misapprehension. An agency chief executive is supposed to direct daily operations, but according to the policy set by the Minister. Moreover, as the Minister is ultimately responsible, the Minister may intervene at any point. Indeed, as he is ultimately accountable, the Minister has a duty to intervene in operational matters if he thinks that some adjustment is required.
Therefore, I do not believe that the rules for agency heads can be different from those for other civil servants—although when they come before Select Committees they can shed light on a wider range of issues because they have a wider range of responsibility. Agency heads should answer fully and frankly when explaining what they are doing and what policies they are following. However, if they are asked questions which require them to discuss the merits of alternative policies that they might be asked to adopt, they should say that that is a matter for the Minister rather than for them.
I believe that part of the suspicion generated by the current arrangements results from hon. Members not always being quite sure of when a chief executive is speaking fully and frankly about the execution and objectives of a policy and when he is speaking guardedly on behalf of his Minister about policy alternatives. I am sure that it would be better if Select Committees were always understanding of that distinction, and if a chief executive were to say when discussion moves out of his direct sphere, so that the Committee could decide to raise those issues with the Minister himself.
I agree, however, with those who want change. I believe that it would be a great move forwards if the chief executives of some agencies had independent commands for which they could be held directly accountable by a Select Committee. The essential point, however, is that the nature of their responsibilities would have to change first. Moreover, the House could not then also hold the Minister accountable, as not even Parliament can have it both ways.
I therefore hope that the Government, the House and the appropriate Select Committees will give very careful thought to the case for cutting some agencies loose from their parent Departments. If that were done, policy requirements for agencies would have to be specified in statute or, more probably, in statutory instruments, so that policy would be public and belong to Parliament rather than to the sponsoring Minister. If a Minister wanted to change that policy, he would have to ask the House for changes to statutory instruments. A chief executive would of course have to operate within those statutory rules, but he—not the Secretary of State—would be fully accountable for all his decisions and how he ran the agency under that legislative prescription.
As this is a very short debate, I shall not attempt to argue the proposition fully. With the right agency, however, I believe that there could be real gains in morale, consistency and effectiveness and in liberation from the Department and from constant and unsettling changes of Ministers. There would certainly be greater scope, not less scope, for the House to oversee the agency. The Government would have to obtain Parliament's consent to any policy change, because Parliament would have to embody it in a new statutory instrument.
The chief executive would be directly accountable to the Select Committee. There would certainly be a reduction in the range of ministerial responsibility and of matters on which the House could effectively question Ministers, but there would certainly be no diminution of accountability to Parliament. Indeed, that accountability could be more thoroughly and effectively insisted upon and discharged.
I hope that we shall be able to return to this subject, as I believe it is an extremely important one in determining how we do our business.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), the Chairman of the Public Service Select Committee, on the work that he is doing. I also hope that the Committee will be re-established, so that it can continue with and implement its thinking on the important matters covered by the valuable report that we are debating today.
Before I deal with the central point concerning my right hon. Friends and I in the Government's response—which the Government hope will eventually be a resolution of the House—to the Committee's report, I should like to endorse entirely the comments of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on the importance of bringing non-departmental bodies, which are responsible for such substantial public expenditure, within the ambit of National Audit Office scrutiny. I hope that there is cross-party agreement on that matter, and that it will be acted on early in the lifetime of the next Parliament. The current situation seems to present an anomaly, which could easily be rectified, although not without certain consequences for the establishment of the NAO. However, as the case was so formidably put by the right hon. Gentleman, it is not necessary to enlarge on it.
I suppose that we should consider it flattering that the Public Service Committee felt it necessary, in paragraph 10 of the report just issued, to say that
the Government should continue to seek cross-party approval for its draft Resolution,"—
I entirely agree with that—
but we believe that failure to obtain the support of all parties should not prevent the House agreeing to a Resolution before the dissolution of this Parliament.
As several right hon. and hon. Members have said, there is a deficiency in the proposed resolution. The Committee is clearly not comfortable with the position on the accountability of chief executives of executive agencies. The second report repeats the comment of the first report that
Chief Executives of Executive Agencies are in a rather different relationship with Select Committees than other civil servants are.
I am not sure that the Government accept even that point, but they ought to. The Committee said that the practice of the House in relation to agencies had already moved a good distance from the conventional relationship between Parliament and civil servants.
The right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) gave a caricature of the Liberal Democrat view on such matters. We are not suggesting that all civil servants should be required to give their personal views on matters of policy. That would be absurd and such an assertion does not greatly assist the debate. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that our concerns are primarily about executive agencies. That is true. Executive agencies are a constitutional innovation that grew up without detailed legislative consideration of all the consequences. I am not even sure that they were thought to be a constitutional innovation. I do not think that they had special parliamentary treatment of the kind sometimes reserved for significant constitutional developments. The Government are responsible for that.
We do not find the development unwelcome. There is a great deal to be said for giving freedom of administrative authority to such bodies and an ability to respond without


having to look constantly over their shoulders for ministerial guidance. However, that does not appear to be how the agencies have worked—or not all of them, certainly. The experience of the Prison Service agency, which the Committee considered, shows that the Home Secretary constantly interferes.
The distinction between policy and administration does not stand up, as the Committee recognises. I regret that the Committee has not followed through that recognition and recommended how to deal with the lacuna. I acknowledge that it has asked the Government to give further consideration to the matter. I hope that, if it is reconstituted, the Committee will consider how best to tackle the problem. It will not be tackled successfully by seeking to foresee the future and defining in ever greater detail events that may take place for which the bodies will have responsibility. Chief executives of agencies must be given greater responsibility for their own actions, and should have to give a direct account of those actions to Select Committees when they are called into question.
It is almost certainly futile to seek to draw a distinction between policy and administration. That trap was opened by Sir Robin Butler, with an entirely spurious distinction between responsibility and accountability. In linguistic terms, it is almost impossible to distinguish between the two. In constitutional terms, that distinction is a device to enable Ministers to have it both ways, putting themselves in a "heads I win, tails you lose" position. When Ministers do not want to take responsibility for an embarrassing issue, they treat it as an administrative matter, for which, by definition, the chairman of the relevant executive agency, or even a junior civil servant, is deemed responsible. In other circumstances, Ministers assume the right to intervene. That is wholly unsatisfactory.
The problem has existed for a long time, but it has become of much greater moment since the development of the next steps agencies. That development is valuable and I hope that we shall not allow this lacuna to remain. The Scott debate—not the debate in the House, but the debate that the investigation unleashed—opened up the possibility of Ministers taking refuge in the Butlerian distinction between accountability and responsibility.
The first operative paragraph of the proposed draft resolution says that Ministers have a duty to the House and its Committees to account, and to be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their Departments and next steps agencies. That begs many questions. It takes refuge in the belief that there are sharp distinctions to be drawn. I do not believe that there are. It prevents the House from holding an executive agency's chairman to account and making a proper examination of his thinking in carrying out his tasks. The work of Select Committees will be hampered if this problem is not effectively and speedily tackled.

Dr. Tony Wright: I shall be as brief as I can.
When in doubt, we tend to send for the judges. We have sent for two judges lately—Sir Richard Scott and Lord Nolan. Sir Richard Scott, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) said, told the Committee that Ministers had behaved in ways in which, constitutionally, they should not, and had denied information to the House which it should properly have.
The Government have proposed a resolution to deal with these matters. It says that when such things happen, there should be consequences. In the events that Sir Richard Scott investigated, there were no consequences. There never are in such events. In that case, the lack of consequences was simply more shameful and brazen than normal. Because time is short, we ought to tell the truth.
Lord Nolan arrived on the scene to dig the Government out of an embarrassing situation. He has done sterling work. In one of his recommendations, he invented a new doctrine that I shall christen prime ministerial responsibility, to be set alongside individual and collective responsibility. The doctrine was that the buck stops with the Prime Minister. He has to judge the conduct of those in his Government. It is interesting that that recommendation was explicitly rejected by the Government. Lord Nolan has recently expressed regret about that, welcoming the fact that the Select Committee has re-endorsed his recommendation.
Even more revealing is that, in wanting to dissent from the Committee's proposed resolution on accountability, the Government have said that they would prefer not to have direct accountability of Ministers to the House, but that it be mediated through the Prime Minister. Yet the Government have already rejected precisely the prime ministerial role, and the doctrine of prime ministerial responsibility. They have therefore nicely escaped from the accountability trap in which they were in danger of finding themselves.
In approaching these matters, the Government have set out to defend the status quo; they have said that the orthodox doctrine on accountability and responsibility is intact and that no change needs to be made. Civil servants, they say, should therefore remain responsible to Ministers and Ministers to the House of Commons. In fact, we in our honest mode know that neither of those things is true. We know that the civil servant-Minister relationship has been transformed by everything that has happened to the public service, of which agencies are simply the most conspicuous example, and that the accountability of Ministers to the House of Commons has been transformed by the rise of party discipline and everything associated with it.
We are therefore dealing with fictions. The question is whether the House of Commons wants to explode those fictions and start asserting a new kind of accountability in relation to a new kind of government. I see the importance of the Committee's proposed resolution—which I hope will quickly become a resolution of the House—as merely the beginning of a process of the House saying that it wants to start asserting itself a little more in relation to all questions of accountability. We have not been doing that.
I again call in aid Lord Nolan, who has been forced to reflect on these matters in some detail over the past couple of years. Giving the Radcliffe lectures at the University of Warwick just a couple of months ago, he said in relation to the Government's defence of the status quo—the orthodox doctrine:
We should not overlook the very centralist nature of this position. It brings the accountability of the Executive down to one very narrow point—the answerability of a hundred Ministers, or twenty Secretaries of State, to Parliament and its Committees. And given that Ministers must, by definition, command a majority in Parliament, the accountability which this provides is not necessarily very strong … Ministerial accountability is now in danger of being used to slow down the growth in accountability of public servants".


That is the central point. Government has changed. Can the House of Commons make accountability change with it? If it can, it will have risen to the occasion. If it cannot, it will have fallen below the occasion.
I suggest one further point: that the Nolan committee be converted into a standing constitutional commission, so that although we have a constitution that we pride ourselves on making up as we go along, at least with that new device, we would begin to make it up in a more consistent and coherent way.

Mr. John Gunnell: In essence, the two different versions of the draft resolution on ministerial accountability that we have discussed reflect an historic tussle for authority between Parliament and the Executive. One makes the House the arbiter of the fate of a Minister who has knowingly misled; the other says that for such an offence the appropriate punishment shall ultimately be for the Prime Minister to determine. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told the Committee:
the language"—
of the draft resolution—
 … expresses what the House would expect but cannot enforce directly".
Surely there is an important point of constitutional principle and practice necessitating that Parliament's disapproval be the determinant of an errant Minister's fate.
The seeming immunity of the Executive from responsibility was highlighted by the recent statement of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who told the House that it had been "inadvertently misinformed" on organophosphates, which may be responsible for Gulf war syndrome, but that civil servants were to blame. The post-Scott scenario appears to be one where Ministers not only continue to deny responsibility, but brazenly on occasions blame civil servants into the bargain.
I was worried when the Committee heard that the Deputy Prime Minister and Sir Robin Butler both regarded it as entirely acceptable that Ministers used special advisers—civil servants—to recruit public servants, such as general practice fundholders, headmasters, and so on, as cheerleaders for Government policy. Surely it is unacceptable for any kind of civil or public servant to be used in the dissemination of party propaganda. It makes a mockery of the Government's argument that it would be "constitutionally improprietous" to put civil servants under a direct obligation to be fully co-operative with Parliament.
I fear that, post-Scott, neither the public nor the legislature can be confident that the Executive is properly accountable or responsible for its actions and the civil service is entirely the neutral executor of the democratic will.

Mr. Derek Foster: I do not think that there will be dancing in the streets of Bishop Auckland tonight because we will have had this debate. Nor do I think that it will be a decisive factor in the Wirral, South by-election. Nonetheless, it is very important, and I join other hon. Members in

congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) and the members of his Committee on bringing the report to the House. I also offer my thanks to the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins). He knows that I have enormous respect for him and the work that he has done in his capacity as Chairman. I endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) about the right hon. Gentleman's work, and hope that his successor will continue along the same lines.
Colleagues will be relieved to know that I do not intend to go into a detailed exegesis of the doctrine of ministerial accountability. I fear that we would be here for many days if I did so. I want to give the Minister time to reply to the debate. Ministerial accountability is crucial because it goes right to the heart of our parliamentary democracy and impinges on the work of this House and the other House and how we conduct our affairs.
The Committee's resolution and the negotiations that followed it are a very important development. Given my experience in the House, I rather fear that, if Select Committee reports are radical, they are ignored, and if they are measured, they have some prospect of influence. The Public Service Committee's report is measured. I am sure that it does not go far enough for some members of the Committee and some people in the House, but it is measured and wise, and will be influential.
If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) said, the report ends up as the beginning of a process by which Parliament over time will begin to assert its strength and use its powers to bring the Executive more fully to account, it will be a very important day. I urge the Minister, as other colleagues have, to bring the resolution to the House soon—certainly before Dissolution. It is quite right to say that the fact that we do not have unanimity in the all-party talks should not deter him and the business managers from making progress.
Ministerial accountability has, of course, become absolutely crucial, largely because of the Scott report and also because of the Derek Lewis affair. I remind the House that paragraph K8.1 of the Scott report said Ministers had failed to discharge their obligations to Parliament on seven separate occasions. The Scott report enumerates those occasions in paragraph D4.63:
In the circumstances, the Government statements made in 1989 and 1990 about policy on defence exports to Iraq consistently failed, in my opinion, with the standard set by paragraph 27 of the Questions of Procedure for Ministers and, more important, failed to discharge the obligations imposed by the constitutional principle of Ministerial accountability.
I have always regarded that as a damning charge, and I still regard the way in which the Government dealt with the Scott report as one of the most cynical and ruthless attempts at self-preservation in post-war political history.
The Government did not achieve their aim. They thought that their authority was so fragile that it could not withstand ministerial resignations. The truth is that ministerial resignations would have enhanced, not diminished, the Government's authority and they stand condemned by that failure of judgment. The whole exercise was a prostitution of the legislature by the Executive, and that is why this debate is so important.
There is widespread mistrust of Parliament and all our institutions, and the next Government are determined to address that. Ministerial accountability must be examined.


I am keen to enhance Parliament's powers to deal with the Executive and to strengthen Select Committees, which have been one of the most progressive developments during my time in the House. Indeed, I congratulate the Conservative Government on introducing them. They are far more efficient at scrutinising the Executive than are most of the debates in the Chamber.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-underLyne (Mr. Sheldon) described some of the developments, and I am grateful for his endorsement for my modest proposals. He did not use the word "sleaze-buster" because he is too decorous, but that is what we need. A freedom of information Act would also increase the accountability of the Executive to Parliament.
I shall now turn to the resolution. I am delighted that the Public Service Committee put forward the resolution, and I congratulate the Chancellor on the way in which he conducted the all-party talks. I also thank him for his positive response to our requests. I hope he will not mind me saying that originally he did not want any mention of civil servants included in the resolution. I believe that he wished to exclude civil servants because he feared that he would be pushed into adopting the Liberal Democrat position that civil servants should be made directly accountable to the House. That is not my party's position. It would be a major constitutional change, and I am not convinced that it is necessary. However, I do not exclude the possibility that it might be a solution for the future.
The Chancellor also responded positively to a suggestion from the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who is not in his place this morning, to reinstate the Committee's reference to ministerial resignation. The reference is not in the form that the Committee suggested, but the difference in the Chancellor's version is unimportant.
The resolution should be put before the House soon. The day that it is accepted will be an important one, because it will enhance Parliament's power to deal with the Executive. My party will support the resolution and I am sure that Parliament will wish to return to it on occasions, as our understanding of the issues develops and as new situations arise. Parliament will thus be able to build on the excellent work of the Committee.
I turn to the subject of accountability and responsibility. If Ministers are accountable to Parliament for all the actions and activities of their Departments and agencies, there is no accountability gap, but there is a responsibility gap. Ministers want to be responsible, perhaps reasonably, only for those matters in which they have been directly involved. However, Scott had an important message for us in his final paragraph:
If Ministers are to be excused blame and personal criticism on the basis of the absence of personal knowledge or involvement, the corollary ought to be an acceptance of the obligation to be forthcoming with information about the incident in question. Otherwise Parliament (and the public) will not be in a position to judge whether the absence of personal knowledge and involvement is fairly claimed or to judge on whom responsibility for what has occurred ought to be placed.
The Government try to pretend that the responsibility gap is not important or that it should be maintained to protect civil servants. The rest of the country believes that the gap is there to protect Ministers, not civil servants. Indeed, one former Minister has said that nobody resigns

for anything these days. Ministers want to claim credit for everything that goes right in Departments and agencies and want to delegate blame for what goes wrong. That is at the heart of the responsibility gap. I share all the reservations of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), but I am not convinced that his solution is the right one. If the House debates the issue, we can all express our reservations, but we should make progress on this issue, which would be an important step for Parliament.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): I join the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) for his chairmanship of the Liaison Committee. He was also an effective Chairman of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. This could be one of the last occasions on which we can pay tribute to him in the House and I add the Government's support to the right hon. Gentleman's comments.
I shall deal first with the substantive point made by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. He mentioned the importance of improving the accountability of non-departmental public bodies. I have published today, and copies are now available in the Vote Office, a White Paper called "The Governance of Public Bodies: A progress report". The document is inevitably detailed, and hon. Members will want some time to consider the Government's conclusions. The conclusions are important, and address some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland.
I shall summarise the conclusions in the short time I have available, as I must also refer to the points made by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice). First, the Government will review the position of every executive non-departmental public body with a view to extending the ombudsman's jurisdiction in this sector as widely as possible. Consideration will be given to bringing advisory bodies into the jurisdiction for the first time.
Secondly, we will introduce a model code for the staff of non-departmental public bodies, and fuller and clearer guidance on codes of practice for board members of public bodies, covering in particular rules on conflict of interest. I hope that these new codes of practice will be in place by 1 June, and I expect a start to be made at the beginning of the new financial year.
Thirdly, we have made a commitment to take forward the Nolan committee's recommendation on the greatest use of consultative arrangements, which bring together local public bodies and local authorities.
Fourthly, we propose to introduce a national consultative forum to bring together key interests in the public sector. This will be led by the National Audit Office, the Audit Commission and the Accounts Commission and will deal with co-ordination.
Fifthly, details of thousands of appointments to executive NDPBs and to NHS bodies are now available on the Internet. I hope that the Commissioner for Public Appointments will be able to extend his role in this field


in due course, although it is asking too much for him to do so at the moment, as he is dealing with central Government.
Finally, I can deal with a point raised by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. The Comptroller and Auditor General should have the power of inspection of all NDPBs which are not already audited. There is a broad consensus in the House on that, and I hope that the White Paper will receive appropriate consideration.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland will forgive me if I refer for a moment to his article in The Guardian—I cannot resist commenting on it. It was written in slightly less inflammatory language—as he and I know well—than that produced by our respective central offices or headquarters. For the convenience of the House, I wish to deal with one point in the article, entitled "It's a Sleaze Buster", in The Guardian on 30 January. I know that he would not wish to imply in any way that the civil service did not behave in other than a perfectly impeccable and objective fashion.
The point that I am trying to make is that it is not Ministers who award contracts, and it never has been—under Labour or Conservative Governments. After the appropriate advertising in the official journal and after the proper tendering process, the civil service provides advice on contracts and Ministers are invited to agree. Sometimes there are directions, and I have placed in the Government's response to the Select Committee report the few examples of directions that I could regularly find.
Principally, directions have been concerned over the years with Ministry of Defence procurement matters, where Ministers might decide for policy reasons to pursue a different route—more to do with the impact of defence procurement decisions on the industrial base—than that recommended for value-for-money reasons by civil servants. It is an objective procedure, and there is no sleaze in the letting of Government contracts. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland would not for a moment subscribe to that critique.
In terms of the privatisation of Government agencies, we have to follow a process which depends on the advice not only of civil servants, but of the consultants involved. We must do so because the NAO looks at all major privatisations—it is properly and routinely looking at the HMSO privatisation now. I hope that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland will not mind me commenting briefly on that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) has long experience of these matters, and he cited with some anguish the problems that he had encountered in answering a parliamentary question. I know that Madam Speaker was concerned about the accuracy with which the Stationery Office was reporting Parliament. I have looked into this matter, because some hon. Members have raised it on points of order and debates with Madam Speaker.
I have come to the conclusion that the error rate has not changed in any significant fashion since privatisation. There are very, very few errors each year, and those which are made are divided equally between the printers and those who supply the text. I am full of admiration for the reporters of our procedures, and for HMSO—now the Stationery Office Ltd. I could trace a couple of errors by the printers since privatisation, but they were made by the same loyal staff who worked for HMSO. I hope that that will set Madam Speaker's mind at rest.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham, who talked about the present position in terms of the accountability of chief executives. I do not believe that chief executives can both be non-statutory civil servants and accountable directly to Parliament. My right hon. Friend—and, I suspect, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—would probably prefer some agencies to become statutory bodies, and I have taken part in debates with Mr. Lewis when he has argued that point. That would give chief executives a wholly different relationship with Parliament, and it is a case that could be argued.
I do not believe that we can ask chief executives, as civil servants, to accept direct accountability and responsibility to Parliament through Select Committees, because that would directly compromise the responsibility of Ministers to Parliament. I am grateful for the support of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland on this. Ministers know no bounds on their accountability, although there are some limits to their personal responsibility.
That allows me to turn to the final and substantive point raised by the hon. Member for North Durham. I am grateful not only to him, but to the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland for their remarks about the Government and myself. As far as the motion is concerned, the Government agreed in principle in November that such a motion was appropriate. This is not a confession of culpability or of error, or that there is somehow a great gulf in the understanding by Ministers of their responsibilities to this House.
"Questions of Procedure for Ministers" lays out clearly the responsibilities of Ministers to be forthcoming, to tell the truth, not to deliberately mislead the House and so forth. The Government agreed that, in parallel with those instructions from the head of the Government to Ministers, there should be a motion in the House to clarify and set down for the first time—a historic constitutional moment for this House and for Parliament—the responsibilities of Ministers.
We accepted that, and I have discussed the text with the major Opposition parties. The draft of the current motion is in the Select Committee report, and is available in the Vote Office. We have had helpful comments from the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the House of Commons, for which the Government are grateful, and these will allow some amendments to be made. I intend to discuss those amendments—which I believe to be procedural and technical in essence—with the major Opposition parties shortly. Discussions in the House of Lords are continuing.
I note that there is no agreement between all parties on the accountability of chief executives of agencies directly to Parliament. That issue has been raised this morning, and the Government have set out their position. We believe that it is important as a point of principle to make sure that chief executives assist Parliament.
Indeed, I can confirm to the hon. Member for North Durham that I cannot find a single instance of a chief executive of an agency not appearing before a Select Committee. It is their duty to help, to turn up, to be as forthcoming as possible and to operate within the Osmotherly rules—named after the civil servant who drew them up—which describe their responsibilities to Parliament. But at the end of the day, they appear with


the foreknowledge and agreement of their Minister, and the Minister himself is fully accountable. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that civil servants cannot be expected to debate or answer for policy, as it is their job to help Select Committees.
Once this motion is passed, my advice is that it will remain through Sessions and Parliaments until the House wishes to return to it. Indeed, the House can return to a motion that we pass at any time, and amend it at any time.
I conclude by thanking all those who have contributed to this debate for their helpful comments, especially in relation to the motion. I confirm on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that it is our aim to bring that motion to the House before Dissolution. It is unfinished business, and the whole House will wish it to be finished.

Vale of Glamorgan (Inward Investment)

Mr. Walter Sweeney: For nearly five years, I have had the privilege to represent one of the most beautiful constituencies in Wales, with Cosmeston lakes on the boundary with Cardiff, South and Penarth to the east, St. Donat's castle to the west, Barry Island and Porthkerry park in Barry, the attractive market towns of Cowbridge and Llantwit Major, and several miles of coastline. We also have countless lovely villages and some very pretty countryside.
Any visitor to the Vale can readily appreciate the tourist attraction that it represents and the general prosperity of the people. Closer inspection would reveal some of the sources of that prosperity and why unemployment in my constituency has fallen from 8.7 per cent. five years ago to 7 per cent. last month. If the Daily Mirror is to be believed, the figure is even better today.
There has been well over £1 billion of inward investment in the Vale in the past five years. I should like to give the House some examples of the successes achieved there, to draw attention to the likely causes and to express some hopes for the future. One of the most exciting developments in Wales is known as the Waterfront Barry, where Associated British Ports, in partnership with the Welsh Development Agency, is engaged in the regeneration of a 190-acre site.
The principal components of that £25 million project are 65 acres of residential development, comprising more than 1,000 homes for all sectors of the community, including luxury waterside apartments and affordable family homes with gardens; a 12.5-acre retail park with 120,000 sq ft of retail space, to revitalise the town centre and restore Barry's reputation as one of the major shopping centres in south Wales; eight acres of commercial development, with new offices, restaurants and smaller businesses; and about 40 acres of leisure and recreational development adjacent to the waterside, creating amenities, space, jobs and environmental improvement.
I had the pleasure of visiting that development last Friday and I had a bit of fun driving a digger on the site; I hope that I did not damage it. It was an interesting visit. The first phase of the contract for the Waterfront development, due to be completed on St. Valentine's day, is virtually complete. The former graving dock has been completely lined, filled with low-level waste and covered with earth that is being levelled in readiness for the construction phase.
The first tranche of new retail development and family homes should be ready in the first quarter of 1998. The project will create many new jobs, both during the 10-year construction period and in the finished development.
The port of Barry has also received a major boost, with the signing of a 25-year contract with Dow Corning. That is associated with the new £150 million Genesis plant, and from 1999 onwards it will substantially increase shipping traffic at the port. That is important to Barry and reflects ABP's continuing core activity as a company that runs ports.
I should also mention the Van Ommeren tank terminal in Barry, which took over the Powell Duffryn terminals last November. Van Ommeren is negotiating with Dow


Corning and ABP to build a new storage facility near the chemical complex by Hayes road in Barry. The first phase will allow the 24-hour transfer of feedstock and finished products between the production plant and storage facility by dedicated pipelines, and from the storage facility to two berths in No. 2 dock, Barry, to meet the worldwide sales and demands for silicones.
Cost estimates for the first phase are £11 million, and construction should commence at the end of this year or the beginning of next year, and last for about 18 months. Jobs will be involved during the construction period, and eventually the existing staff at the old tank terminal will transfer to the new tank facility. The main benefit of the development is the guarantee of existing jobs into the next century and the continuance of silicone production in Barry at the Dow Corning site.
Historically, British Petroleum was the major player on the chemical complex site near Hayes road, but over recent years much of the land has been transferred to other companies. Despite that, BP invested £26 million in 1992 to build a new phenolic resins plant, and in doing so created one of the most modern manufacturing facilities in Europe. BP employs 125 people in Barry and currently has 12 modern apprentices. Given the size of the work force, that number of apprentices represents a considerable investment in the future.
Dow Corning is one of the biggest investors in the Vale. The company, founded in the United States in 1943, began to manufacture silicones at Barry in 1952. Since then, it has invested more than £100 million in the site and developed thousands of new products. It is currently in the middle of a major expansion of capacity at Barry that will create about 150 new jobs, so Dow Corning will employ more than 600 people there.
The project will generate up to 500 additional jobs during the construction phase. Silicones are used every day, without people realising it. The work force at Dow Corning are indirectly helping to protect tiny diodes, to make babies' teats, to seal windows and even to make sure that stockings stay up. The people of the Vale can be proud of that forward-looking, high-investing company.
Another important investor in Barry, next door to Dow Corning, is Cabot Carbon, which built a plant for $62 million in 1991—note the dollars, as this is American investment in Wales—of which $6 million was grant. Since then, $1 million was spent on a dispersion plant in 1995 and a further $5 million on plant expansion last year. This year, a further $1 million is being spent on the treatment plant and $2.5 million on plant expansion. In addition, $1 million is spent each year on improvements. Cabot employs 67 people in Barry, plus 10 contractors, and expects to take on four extra staff this year.
On the same important site, Dow Chemical Co. employs 32 people and has six contractors permanently on site. The number of employees has diminished over the years, but two teenagers are working there under a work experience scheme organised by Barry training and enterprise council. Over the past five years, Dow has invested approximately £5 million in its facilities and it is planning a long-term future in Barry. It hopes to recruit one or two new employees in the coming year.
Zeon Chemicals is another Barry success story. Between 1988 and 1995, production increased by 50 per cent., but acrylonitrile and butadiene emissions were reduced by 90 per cent. Last year, substantial further

investments were made to expand production while further reducing emission levels. Zeon and all the companies on the chemical complex in Barry co-operate closely with one another to protect the environment, to comply with statutory requirements and to keep the public informed through regular consultation.
The last company on the chemical site that I must mention is European Vinyls, a company that has its UK headquarters at Runcorn and is the largest PVC producer in Europe. It employs 100 people in Barry in a plant built by BP for £42 million in 1981. In the past three years, EVC has spent £4.5 million on improving the plant.
On the western edge of my constituency, Ford Bridgend produces the Zetec engines for the Escort and other Ford models and I understand that production is likely to continue, whatever happens at Halewood. Of particular interest to me, as a Jaguar fan, was seeing the production line for the new Jaguar V8 engine, which was gradually stepping up production in July last year, ready for the introduction of the fabulous new Jaguar sports car in the autumn. That certainly bodes well for the future of that plant, as I have no doubt that the demand for that model will help to protect the well-paid jobs at the Ford plant.
Moving to the northern boundary of my constituency, I must refer the House to the success of the Robert Bosch plant, which was opened in January 1991. Last year, when I visited the factory, it was producing 15,000 alternators a day and easily out-performing its rival parent plant in Stuttgart. In 1995, it produced its 10 millionth alternator. Bosch had 27 apprentices at the time of my visit and was using sophisticated methods, such as just-in-time working. There was high pay for the workers, giving the lie to the allegation so often made by Labour Members that Wales is a cheap-labour economy. The plant provides excellent working conditions and good retraining facilities. In case anyone from Cardiff international airport is listening, I should perhaps mention that Bosch would very much like a direct air link between Cardiff and Stuttgart.
I visited Robert Bosch in Stuttgart in 1995 and asked Mr. Gerhard Turner, who is now commercial director of the K2 division, why the company had come to Wales. He said that, first, it provided easy access to the large United Kingdom domestic market. Secondly, he mentioned the lack of red tape in Wales and the fact that it took half the time to build the plant and get it up and running there as it would have taken in Germany. The third reason was the flexible work force: if an order is received on Friday to supply goods the following Monday, the company does not have to engage in lengthy negotiations with work force representatives—they simply change the shifts and get on with it.
Fourthly, the company has no problems with moving goods by road at weekends in Wales: in Germany, there are restrictions on lorry movements at weekends. Fifthly, and a very important factor, there are the lower social costs that are added on to wages, which make a huge difference to the net cost of employing people in Wales compared with Stuttgart. Finally, there are good road and rail communications. Mr. Turner might also have mentioned that the Vale is an extremely attractive place for Bosch workers to live.
RAF St. Athan is the biggest employer in my constituency. It has been pursuing an active civilianisation programme for the past four years and 1,190 new jobs are being created over a three-year period. In the process,


about 350 personnel are being trained. The annual cash budget for RAF St. Athan is around £115 million, or about £250 million for the full cost budget, with spares and overheads. About £50 million of that finds its way into the local economy. RAF St. Athan is subject to market tests and open competition and is due to submit its in-house bid on 19 February. Whatever the outcome, prospects look good.
Also, Blue Circle Aberthaw is investing nearly £2 million this year and is planning to invest another £5 million by the millennium.
Finally, there is Cardiff international airport, which in some ways is the jewel in the crown. The airport, which was run by three local authorities, was bought by TBI plc and has since gone from strength to strength. Two Ministers have recently visited RAF St. Athan and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has visited Cardiff international airport; they could see for themselves the huge strides that have been made since privatisation.
I have a special plea for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales on behalf of the airport. I ask him most sincerely to continue to plan to fund the new road to connect Cardiff docks with the airport. My hon. Friend has already approved some £800,000 of initial spending to cover the design stage of the road and I emphasise the tremendous importance of the road, not only to the potential £40 million development in the vicinity of the airport but to the whole of Barry, including the chemical complex that I described.
I also hope that we shall see the opening of the existing freight railway line between Barry and Rhoose for passengers, preferably with a spur serving the airport and, ideally, the line continuing to Llantwit Major. I appreciate that there are cost problems for that major investment in upgrading the line, but with the substantial housing development in Rhoose and Llantwit Major and the increasing traffic at the airport it may well become a viable proposition.
I must put in a special plea on behalf of residents in the Dinas Powys area of my constituency, who would appreciate some help from the Government. I realise that, as the highway authority, the Vale of Glamorgan council is responsible, but we very much want a new bypass around Dinas Powys; it would not only improve the quality of life for people living there but make transport between Cardiff, Barry and the rest of the Vale very much better.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) for giving us the opportunity to debate the economic and inward investment success story in Wales. It is a remarkable story, which many of our competitors envy, and it is a story that affects all of us in Wales. My hon. Friend details an impressive list of all that is going on in the Vale of Glamorgan. I know that that reflects his extensive activities as an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament. I believe that that is very much in the traditions of the late Sir Raymond Gower who, in many ways, was the predecessor of both my hon. Friend and myself.
My hon. Friend excited me with what is happening with the waterfront development in Barry. I am sure that his practical involvement recently will have been significant in taking that project forward to its imminent completion. He rightly referred to the importance of Cardiff International airport to his constituency. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was one of the Ministers who visited recently, and he went elsewhere in south Wales last week. I am sure that he was impressed by being able to see on the ground what good use we make of the money that we receive from the Treasury. That will better equip my Department for the next round of public expenditure negotiations.
My hon. Friend was concerned about improving the road from Cardiff to the airport. The road is the responsibility of the Vale of Glamorgan local authority as the highway authority. The original scheme involved on-line proposals to upgrade the A4050 and the A4226 between Culverhouse Cross and the airport at a cost of £23 million. However, there was fierce opposition to the plan, and there were congestion concerns, to the extent that an alternative, off-line route has been proposed at a cost of £58 million. My hon. Friend is a strong supporter of that proposal. As he said, we have provided transport grant settlement of £800,000 for the local authority for 1997–98, which will allow it to proceed with the preparation work for phase 1 and to investigate further the feasibility of phase 2.
I have to acknowledge my hon. Friend's persuasive powers. At a time of the greatest constraint on public expenditure, he was primarily responsible for persuading the Secretary of State and me to provide the £800,000 that will enable the local authority to go forward. No doubt next year he will seek to be even more persuasive in trying to elicit money from us, but I cannot anticipate. I note what he said about the need for the Dinas Powys bypass, but I cannot give any promises today.
My hon. Friend's constituency has shared in the exceptional success that we have enjoyed in attracting inward investment to Wales. Since 1983, almost 7,000 new jobs have been promised, with associated capital investment of almost £1.7 billion. Ford, Robert Bosch and British Airways have caught the eye because of their size and importance, but many other good projects have come to the Vale of Glamorgan through companies from the United States, Europe, the far east and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
We have had a good run of industrial news for Wales in the past year or so. Sony, Ford, Newport Wafer-Fab, Toyota, British Aerospace and St. Merryn are only a few examples. LG was the most significant single announcement. It was the largest ever inward investment not just in Wales and the United Kingdom but in Europe. Those projects will take a further 10,000 people off the unemployment register. Moreover, that figure does not take account of the indirect jobs that will undoubtedly be generated.
What the Government have done to bring LG to the Cardiff-Newport area must be of the greatest importance to my hon. Friend, given the close proximity of his constituency. We shall build on those investments in the months and years to come and make sure that Wales continues to forge ahead in the important job of sustaining a vibrant and dynamic economy which is capable of taking on and beating the best in the world.
It is incumbent upon us all to ensure that the whole of Wales enjoys the full benefits of inward investment. We want better distribution throughout Wales and we have given the Welsh Development Agency targets to achieve that. I am pleased that those targets have been achieved and, indeed, consistently exceeded over the past three years.
Major announcements in recent months present enormous opportunities. All of us involved in economic development must work together to make sure that we take full advantage of those opportunities for the people of Wales.
Wales is home to more than 300 overseas-owned manufacturing companies which employ more than 75,000 people. They are spread throughout Wales from Toyota in the north-east to Panasonic in the south-east, Euro DPC in the north-west and Calsonic in the south-west. Those investments have provided much-needed new jobs but the impact of inward investment is wide-reaching. The new jobs are vitally important to the families they support: none of us should underestimate that.
Equally important is the diversity that inward investors have brought to Wales. Where we were once heavily dependent on a narrow band of industries, we can now boast significant strengths in automotive components and aerospace—as my hon. Friend knows through their strong representation in his constituency—in consumer and office electronics, and a growing one in semiconductors. We are at the leading edge of technology in many of those sectors and more and more centres of excellence are being established in Wales. That diversity has given the economy of Wales robustness and dynamism. Wales can now withstand the inevitable peaks and troughs of the commercial world.
Falling unemployment in Wales has not happened by accident but by design. As my hon. Friend said, there has been another big and welcome fall in unemployment today. In January, unemployment in Wales fell by 2,700, leaving a rate of 7.1 per cent. Since October, 9,200 people in Wales have been taken out of unemployment.
Our excellent performance might well be compared with that of, say, Germany, because now no constituency in Wales has unemployment as high as the latest German figure of 12.2 per cent. I have the latest figures from the Library, which show that not only does every constituency in Wales compare favourably with Germany but only one out of the 38 constituencies in Wales has unemployment higher than the European average. I am pleased that the Vale of Glamorgan is below the Welsh average, and that my own constituency is the second lowest in the Welsh list.
I readily agree that unemployment remains too high, but we should take encouragement and heart from the progress that we have made, especially compared with others in Europe. In line with that was the banner headline on the front page of the national daily newspaper of Wales, the Western Mail, which proclaimed the likelihood of a further 1,000 jobs coming to the capital city of Wales, through a proposal for a call centre by CableTel, which is already well represented in south Wales. That is in line with other companies that have chosen to invest in Wales to establish call centres.
That fact offers a stark rejection of a less prominent article on page 5 of the same newspaper describing a survey which suggested that people find the Welsh accent

unattractive and that even we in Wales do not care for it. I am sure that the survey must be too narrow to have any real validity, as I am sure that CableTel and others who have already established call centres in Wales, or are thinking of it, would not have done so without the fullest research, including evaluation of the worth of the Welsh accent in dealings over the telephone. Again, the possibility of 1,000 jobs from CableTel is welcome. My hon. Friend and I welcome the fact that more employment will be created for his constituents in the Vale of Glamorgan and I hope to discuss the proposals with Mr. Terry Ryan of CableTel.
Strong economic and fiscal measures have given this country stable and predictable inflation and interest rates, which have given companies the confidence to invest in Wales. We are getting new investors, as well as expansions by well established companies.

Mr. William Cash: Has my hon. Friend noticed the extraordinary outburst of Mr. Niall FitzGerald, the chairman of Unilever, claiming that, if we do not join a single currency, that enormous multinational company, which employs 21,000 people in Britain, would think twice about its investment programme in the United Kingdom? Is that not an outrageous interference in the political process, and does not the situation in Wales show that Mr. FitzGerald is quite wrong about inward investment? Companies such as Nissan and Honda, and many others, have said that their decisions have nothing to do with the single currency. Would it not be as well for Mr. FitzGerald to leave politics to the politicians?

Mr. Jones: I am sure that there is great substance in my hon. Friend's point. In considering matters such as the single currency, which go wider than this debate, we need to take all factors into account rather than adopting the narrow approach that Unilever and others may have taken. Further and more mature consideration may lead them to a different conclusion.
The jobs created by inward investors and the new industries that they have brought are not the full story. Inward investors are keen to source locally and the Welsh Development Agency's "source Wales" programme has played a vital role in ensuring that we maximise the potential that exists. The agency worked closely with indigenous companies, many of which have taken the opportunity to expand and create jobs to satisfy the often substantial needs generated by the likes of Sony, Panasonic and Toyota.
While large inward investors catch the headlines, we have always taken—and always will take—an active role in encouraging home-grown companies to develop. The support that we can and do provide to inward investors is available to indigenous companies under the same terms. Indeed, over the past 10 years the support provided to indigenous companies has exceeded that given to inward investors but inward investors tend to have the headline grabbing projects. The combined effect of this industrial development is the strengthening of our whole economy.
New inward investors and local sourcing replace imports. That is good news for the United Kingdom as a whole. Just as important, inward investors use this country as a springboard into Europe. Many have achieved the Queen's award for export achievement, some more than once, and there are even examples of Japanese companies in Wales exporting back to Japan.
As my hon. Friend and I know, the single market offers many opportunities for our home-grown companies as well as our inward investors. It is a market of almost 400 million consumers, many of whom are developing and many of whom aspire to those things that we in the west have taken for granted.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there are many good things happening in Wales, both in his constituency of the Vale of Glamorgan and up and down principality. Those will continue as long as we resist the dreadful, job-destroying twin threats—the social chapter and the minimum wage from Europe and the totally unnecessary bureaucracy of a Welsh Assembly—that would stifle further development in Wales.

Ambulance Services (Pembrokeshire)

Mr. Nick Ainger: I have requested this debate today because, although the Pembrokeshire ambulance service operating as part of the Pembrokeshire national health service trust offers an excellent, cost-efficient, fast and effective service to the people of Pembrokeshire, that service is under threat for the second time in the space of a year.
Last summer, the Welsh Ambulance Policy Advisory Group—WAPAG—consisting of the chairmen and chief executives of each of the Welsh ambulance trusts, proposed a reconfiguration of ambulance services in Wales, forming three new health trusts. It was proposed that the whole of Dyfed Powys and Morgannwg health authority areas be covered by one ambulance trust—the Mid and West Wales ambulance trust—that north Wales be covered by another, and south Wales by a third. The existing trusts were to be dissolved and replaced by the new trusts in April 1997. The proposed Mid and West Wales ambulance trust would cover a geographical area of 1.2 million hectares and a population of 976,000, and would have a road length of more than 16,000 km.
A massive campaign was organised in Pembrokeshire by Unison in the ambulance service, by the community health council, by town and community councils, and by local representatives of all political parties. This morning, I welcome some 27 people from all over Pembrokeshire, who represent town and community councils, and Unison representing the ambulance service. They have collected more than 60,000 signatures in a petition opposing the abolition of the Pembrokeshire ambulance service. I shall present that petition on the Floor of the House tonight.
Following the campaign and the objections to the proposal from the Pembrokeshire NHS trust and SEWAT—the South and East Wales NHS ambulance trust—it appeared that the plans for centralisation of ambulance services in Wales had been quietly dropped. The people of Pembrokeshire breathed a sigh of relief—but that was not the end of the story.
In the guise of evaluating the response of the eight-minute Orcon standard, WAPAG produced in December a project initiation document, the objectives of which included looking again at the configuration of ambulance services in Wales. The document states:
encouragement to proceed has been received from the Under-Secretary of State for Health"—
that is, the Welsh Office Minister who is on the Treasury Bench today. WAPAG intends to submit joint proposals to the Welsh Office by June 1997, with a view to public consultation in autumn 1997 and introduction of the new trust arrangements in April 1998.
My main concern is that those proposals will again involve the abolition of the Pembrokeshire ambulance service. The prediction is that WAPAG will produce a report stating that there should be one ambulance service for the whole of Wales, possibly managed as three divisions—in other words, a rehash of the original WAPAG proposal for three ambulance trusts, but under a single Welsh badge. That could be, quite literally, a tragedy for Pembrokeshire and for the rest of Wales.
Part of the proposal is to evaluate a single ambulance control for Wales, but that would remove the tremendous advantages that come from having local ambulance


controls, such as the ambulance control in Pembrokeshire, which is based at Withybush general hospital. A centralised management system with central control lacks the flexibility to respond to a range of incidents, including major events in remote parts of Wales such as Pembrokeshire.
Even if control and management were in a divisional tier—for example, if it were based at Swansea—in the event of a major incident at one of the oil refineries at Milford Haven, incident control could be established only when the major incident team had collected a major incident vehicle and driven the 60 miles from Swansea, arriving up to an hour and half after the notification of the start of the incident. By that time, without an incident control assessing the on-site risk, the first local crews to reach the scene could have been seriously injured through being dispatched into a dangerous area with no prior on-site assessment. That happened on board the Pointsman—a tanker on which there was a series of explosions resulting in deaths in 1984 at Milford docks.
That problem could be overcome by operating in the same manner as the fire service, with local divisional offices, five of which would be needed to man a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week rota in Pembrokeshire alone; but that would add at least £100,000 to ambulance service costs in Pembrokeshire, thus wiping out any marginal savings from centralised control and management of the ambulance service. On an all-Wales basis, using the unitary authority areas, that would mean additional costs of at least £1.2 million.
The local control considerably expedites the emergency response, which is even more vital now that all British Telecom 999 services come from Cardiff, and the control staff are regularly faced with misdirected calls, or have to interpret the whereabouts of visitors who have no local knowledge.
On a day-to-day level, there are significant advantages to local control within the district general hospital. It gives the hospital advance warning of building pressures as emergency work levels rise; enables discharges within an hour that are required to free beds for incoming emergencies; and saves £150,000 per year compared to manning a separate control, a hospital switchboard and community nurse communication system.
Throughout peak periods during the past two years, Withybush was the only hospital in the south Wales corridor to continue to admit emergency cases. At no time did the accident and emergency department based at Withybush hospital have to close its doors—unlike every other accident and emergency department in district general hospitals in south and west Wales, all of which have had to close at some time during the past two years.
The ambulance service in Pembrokeshire benefits enormously from the commitment of its staff and from a modern standardised specialist fleet carrying the equipment necessary to tackle the sort of emergencies faced in the area; but that was not always so. In the early 1980s, when the service returned to Pembrokeshire, it inherited a dilapidated and rundown fleet and disheartened staff who had no clear sense of identity with the service. Now the staff have built a team spirit and developed a range of specialist new skills and services.
Ambulance personnel have been integrated into the cliff rescue teams that are situated around the Pembrokeshire coastline, and the commitment of the staff is such that all

the training and exercises involved have been carried out in their own time and at no cost to the NHS trust. Those taking part in paramedic training have also put in many hours of unpaid overtime.
There is a danger that that sort of dedication would quickly evaporate in a large ambulance trust with no sense of identity and serving many different hospitals. A medical priority dispatch service has also been introduced, enabling ambulance staff to give assistance over the phone that will help to save lives. Pembrokeshire ambulance service has consistently met Orcon standards, which are traditionally very difficult for a rural service to achieve. Again, that is down to the commitment of the management and staff.
Remote management of ambulance services on an all-Wales basis, or through the three-trust model, would reinforce the technical needs of the service for digitised geographical information systems, computerised ambulance location systems and computer-aided dispatch systems. For a large central control, those typically cost approximately £500,000 per system, and their performance has been patchy to say the least, especially in the mountainous terrain that covers most of Wales. With local knowledge, good relations between ambulance crews and control and good working systems between local doctors, hospital consultants and the ambulance service, the public get a better service, without the need for such expensive technology.
The proposal to create either one or three large ambulance trusts clearly poses a threat to the quality of the service in Pembrokeshire and the rest of Wales, but it is also likely to lead to large cost increases. The document prepared by WAPAG for the Welsh Office last year, which attempted to justify the merger of ambulance services in Wales, compared the unit cost incurred by the Pembrokeshire ambulance service with forecast equivalent figures for the proposed Mid and West Wales ambulance trust. Out of five areas performance-costed, the present arrangements under the Pembrokeshire NHS trust were found to be substantially cheaper per unit in three categories, and only marginally more expensive in the other two, than the estimated cost for the proposed new ambulance trust.
The cost of every 999 call attended would rocket from £230.72 now in Pembrokeshire to £265.29 under the proposed Mid and West Wales trust. The cost of the ambulance service per head of population would increase from £11.66 to £12.59, and the cost of each medical services staff member would increase from £32,317 to £38,776.
The Pembrokeshire ambulance service is recognised as a local service. The proposed changes cannot be justified on the grounds of cost or benefit to patients; the only motivation is to tackle the disaster that is SEWAT—a complete failure, because it was too big, inefficient and failed patients—but one does not solve a problem like SEWAT by creating what is potentially an even bigger disaster.
Obviously, that is not a reason to disband a highly effective service which has local knowledge and the expertise to deal with the types of incidents likely to arise in Pembrokeshire, or a good enough reason to throw away the advantages of the relationships that have been built up between the ambulance service, the hospitals and the doctors in the trust.
The Minister has expressed his support for the WAPAG review, both to the group and in a written answer to me. The project initiation document dated 3 December 1996 states:
encouragement to proceed has been received from the Under-Secretary
of State
for Health",
and the Minister told me in his written answer:
I welcome the work being undertaken by the Welsh ambulance policy advisory group."—[Official Report, 28 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 159.]
However, in encouraging WAPAG in that project, he is supporting further moves away from local control of the health service in Wales, promised by the Conservative party before the last general election.
In April 1996, the number of health authorities in Wales was reduced from eight to five, with Pembrokeshire losing its health authority. The Pembrokeshire health authority was swallowed up by the huge Dyfed Powys health authority, covering half the surface of Wales. Control and influence has been removed from local areas to faceless management in distant locations. Any centralisation of ambulance services will further strain people's identity with their supposedly local health service.
Given the considerable advantages of the locally based Pembrokeshire service, in which other hospital trusts have expressed a great deal of interest, WAPAG should now ensure that the benefits of the Pembrokeshire model are fully evaluated, with a view to applying them throughout Wales, instead of choosing a huge, centralised single trust, or the three-trust model, both of which will be costly and may lead to a deterioration in the quality of service provided, not only in Pembrokeshire but throughout Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), who visited Withybush general hospital last year and saw the control arrangements for the ambulance service, and who will in the next few weeks take up ministerial responsibilities for health in Wales under a new Labour Government, has assured me that he will ensure that any review of the ambulance service in Wales closely examines the locally based model that has been so successful in Pembrokeshire. I urge the Minister now, in the last days of his Government, to give a similar assurance, and remove from the Pembrokeshire ambulance service the threat that he has, until today, encouraged and supported.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) also wants to make a contribution, and I now conclude my remarks; but I remind the Minister that the health service in Pembrokeshire was a major issue in the 1992 general election campaign, and I am sure that his responses today will be part of the forthcoming general election campaign.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly on an important subject. I want to raise an issue of which the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) is aware—the

ambulance service in north Pembrokeshire—and to point out that there is significant concern about levels of cover and response times there. That concern has led to a demand for the establishment of an ambulance station in Crymych, and the offer by the local community council to provide the land and the building for such an ambulance station—an offer that should not be lightly dismissed.
I have been in correspondence on that subject with many people, including the Minister. The chief executive of the West Wales Ambulance NHS trust, Mr. Butcher, tells me in a reply to a letter from me that that is a matter not for him but for the health authority, because it is the authority that will have to contract for the continuing cost to the service even though the basic infrastructure—the building—would be provided free, and he says that the health authority would probably say that it could not afford to deliver that service.
We know about the financial problems of the Dyfed Powys health authority. Those issues need to be addressed by the Welsh Office in terms of the funding of the health authority. In view of the lack of movement on that matter, one must ask, how do the health authority, the trust and all concerned propose to ensure that the eight-minute response time for immediately life-threatening conditions recommended in the NHS Executive review on the ambulance service is met? That response time applies to rural and urban areas, in recognition of the fact that there should be equality regarding such an important service.
Mr. Butcher writes that methods other than the establishment of an ambulance station in Crymych might be developed to ensure that the response level requirement is met. He suggests that there should be more co-ordination between the two trusts. Currently, the ad hoc arrangements that exist for co-operation between the West Wales and the Pembrokeshire trusts are very much a one-way affair.
The Cardigan ambulance has made 121 calls in the past eight months in north Pembrokeshire to meet demand there. By contrast, there have been only two calls by the Pembrokeshire ambulance in Ceredigion itself. I understand that that service from Cardigan to north Pembrokeshire imposes significant strains on the service, which can no longer be ignored.
Unless we get an ambulance station in Crymych, the responsible bodies must come together to ensure that the response times that will be required and which should be delivered are delivered in that area. The people of that part of Pembrokeshire are very worried about that.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to the points that have been made by the hon. Members for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) and for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis). I hope to be able to give considerable reassurance to people in Pembrokeshire and to those who take a close interest in Pembrokeshire ambulance provision.
I regard ambulance provision as an integral part of health care, vital to our well-being. Especially in recent years, the Pembrokeshire ambulance service, although relatively small, with a staff of slightly more than 60, has proved to be committed to providing the best quality for Pembrokeshire patients. We can see that in many ways, not least in the fact that it has met patients charter standards.
Last year, the Pembrokeshire ambulance service responded to 95 per cent. of emergency calls within 21 minutes, and more than 50 per cent. within eight minutes. That is a considerable achievement, given the rurality of Pembrokeshire and the unmarked roads in the more sparsely populated areas. I am sure that that is a tribute to the ability and commitment of all who work for Pembrokeshire ambulance, most obviously the drivers but equally everyone else involved.
Here I find myself in full agreement with what the hon. Member for Pembroke said about those working for Pembrokeshire ambulance. The excellent response rate was also achieved despite an 8 per cent. increase in emergency calls over the previous year.
On paramedics, the Pembrokeshire ambulance service has again shown its resourcefulness in meeting our requirement that each front-line ambulance should be manned by at least one fully trained paramedic. Pembrokeshire expects to be able to comply by June this year, and would have done so earlier, but for the ill health of two staff members. The Government firmly believe that getting a fully trained paramedic to the scene of an incident as quickly as possible is the right way to save lives.
Almost 8,000 emergency and urgent patients and about 63,000 other patients were carried by Pembrokeshire ambulance service in 1995–96. The staff deserve the highest commendation that we can offer them.
The hon. Member for Pembroke makes much of what he calls the threat for the second time. He indulges in wild exaggeration, which is typical of someone who prefers to live in the realm of conspiracy theories. Inevitably, the reality is entirely different from what he claims.
I have been impressed by the various organisations and individuals who have taken an interest in the proper question of ambulance provision in Pembrokeshire. I have read all the letters, and it is appropriate to refer to them.
The clerks of Haverfordwest town council, Neyland town council, Havens community council, Fishguard and Goodwick town council, Milford Haven town council, Pembroke town council, Redbaxton community council, Burton community council, Llangwm Hook community council and Narberth town council all felt it necessary to write to me. Mr. H. E. Baker of St. Florence, Tenby has written, as has, not surprisingly, Mrs. Val Sanders, the agent of the Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire Conservative and Unionist Association.
Later today, I will be meeting Mr. O. J. Williams, who is bringing a representative of Pembrokeshire ambulance service to see me. I will be in Crymych next week at the invitation of Mr. Robert Buckland to see the situation there at first hand. Some hon. Members may not know that Mr. O. J. Williams is the prospective Conservative candidate for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire, and Mr. Robert Buckland is the prospective Conservative candidate for Preselli and Pembrokeshire.
That is the distinguished list of people and organisations who have made representations on the matter, which I have carefully noted. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Pembroke has asked me four questions on the matter—three last May and one in January—and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) has written to me twice on the subject of ambulances in Pembrokeshire.
The hon. Member for Pembroke gave the game away in his concluding remarks, when he referred to the last general election and the coming general election. He has suddenly woken up to the matter of Pembrokeshire ambulance service, because of the activities of O. J. Williams and Robert Buckland. It is another example of a nervous Labour Member of Parliament in a very marginal seat who has decreasing confidence in the possibility of his being in the next House of Commons.
I must tell both hon. Gentlemen that any proposals to reconfigure overall ambulance provision are matters for the ambulance trusts and those involved with ambulance operations in the case of Pembrokeshire, in conjunction with their respective commissioners—health authorities and hospital NHS trusts.
I have not asked for an expression of interest to change the shape of ambulance trusts anywhere in Wales, or set any timetable for its submission. I am surprised by the fears expressed about a review being undertaken by the Welsh Ambulance Policy and Advisory Group to determine how ambulance provision can be improved. Indeed, I would be more worried if NHS trusts were not constantly looking for improvements, particularly when the most important priority is the constant pursuit of higher standards for patients through quicker response times for the most urgent cases.
The group's review involves and is supported by all Welsh ambulance operations, including Pembrokeshire's. The group intends to maintain good communications with representatives of health authorities and other NHS trusts. I and the Welsh Office health department have made it clear that, in the interests of improvements always being considered, the work being undertaken by the group is welcomed.
I emphasise, however, that that work has not been requested by me or by any other or previous Minister in the Welsh Office; nor is the group's work being paid for by the Welsh Office.

Mr. Ainger: In the original WAPAG document produced last summer, only one choice is offered—three trusts covering the whole of Wales. The second document, dated December, giving a project overview, states:
The programme of work set out in this PID follows from the outline expression of interest developed by the WAPAG reconfiguration team and the commissioner attitude survey undertaken by Grant Thornton. Subsequently, encouragement to proceed has been received from the Under-Secretary for Health and WAPAG agreed to submit joint proposals to the Welsh Office by June 1997.
How can the Minister deny that?

Mr. Jones: I have just told the hon. Gentleman, as I said to him in answer to the question that he asked in January, that such work is always welcome. I would be disappointed if health professionals in Wales were not giving serious consideration to ways in which provision could be improved, in relation to ambulances or any other activity of the NHS.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The Minister cannot wriggle out of the question. The document by the chief ambulance officers in Wales through their membership of WAPAG referred to specific encouragement by the Under-Secretary of State, whom I understand to be the hon. Member for Cardiff,


North (Mr. Jones). He cannot wriggle out of the question by saying that there is a general move towards achieving quicker response times. There is a reference to specific encouragement by him for the submission of the second document. Is he denying that, or is he saying that the people on WAPAG do not know what they are talking about?

Mr. Jones: The situation is as I said. I know that it would not be understood by the hon. Gentleman, who constantly displays his lack of understanding of the health service in Wales. I have not asked for any particular thing to be done, I am not directing it, and I am not paying for it, but I would be disappointed if any part of the health service in Wales was not giving serious professional consideration to improvements. Only after such consideration can we find ways forward.
It is clear that there is great strength of feeling on several matters. I have emphasised how essential it is for any review to address all the possible options, and for it to be based on hard information, and to reach conclusions about genuine patient benefits and value-for-money savings. I expect all those involved with ambulances to co-operate in providing whatever information is necessary.
I am aware of the group's objective to submit joint proposals for the future provision of ambulances in Wales by June this year. If the proposals include a possible reconfiguration of NHS trusts—I would consider proposals only if they clearly demonstrated benefits to patients and value for money—they would be subject to public consultation in the usual way.
I readily reassure the House that the group is a useful body, consisting of the chairmen and chief executives of the various ambulance NHS trusts in Wales. The group provides a good consultative forum for developing ambulance policy initiatives and best practice. One of my officials is generally invited to attend as an observer. That enables the Welsh Office to keep in touch with ambulance operation and secure good advice from the professionals on policy development. It is a further welcome sign of NHS trusts working together to provide better health care for the people of Wales.

Mr. Dafis: Will the Minister encourage those concerned to develop a specific scheme to meet the needs of the people of north Pembrokeshire, by ensuring much closer co-ordination or the provision of an ambulance station in Crymych?

Mr. Jones: I give my fullest commitment to the best possible provision of ambulances in Pembrokeshire and throughout Wales, but that must be evolved locally. I cannot anticipate whether there will be any change. I shall certainly not impose any change. If proposals come forward, they must all be subjected to the fullest consultation locally. Only then will I consider them.
While I shall bear in mind value for money, my overriding consideration will be whether proposals will benefit patients. All I am interested in is whether any proposed changes will bring about improvements in Pembrokeshire, west Wales or elsewhere in Wales, rather than Opposition Members' ridiculous conspiracy theories.

Fire Services (Essex)

Sir Teddy Taylor: I apologise to the Minister for coming to him twice within one week, but he will appreciate that this important and serious issue relates to the financing and operation of fire brigades and the special problems in Essex.
Thanks to the courtesy of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), I had the pleasure of speaking in his debate last week. I shall try to speak briefly so that he might have the opportunity to do the same in mine.
Most colleagues are aware of the difficulties in getting problems resolved. Essex, including Rochford, faces a serious problem. It is not unusual, when such constituency problems arise, for hon. Members to shout a great deal, but I hope that the fact that hon. Members from all parties in Essex have co-operated on this will prove to the Minister that this is an extremely serious issue.
That fact has also been demonstrated by the meetings of local residents. Indeed, some of the consultation meetings have resembled nasty boxing matches. I attended a meeting in Rochford, which was delightfully chaired by the deputy mayor, Councillor Heather Glynn, who, although not from my party, was clearly a respected person in the community. The meeting was so large that we had to add another full meeting.
The points made by residents are simple: first, the calls on the brigades have increased; secondly, the number of buildings at risk have increased; and, thirdly, the principles on which those reports are based seem to be out of date, given the problems of trying to conform to travel time requirements.
In trying to resolve the problems, the hon. Member for Thurrock and I have been frustrated by different public authorities. I have felt a certain frustration with the Government, although I love them all dearly.
To try to ensure that we had accurate information before this debate, I tabled a "W" question asking simply how much money had been provided by the Government within standard spending assessments for fire authority operations and how much had been spent. I thought that that information would be available, but the answer that I received yesterday, as the Minister will be aware, was that the Government would provide the information shortly—no doubt after the debate. It would be nice to know that basic fact, because the information we have is that, in almost every major county, there is excessive expenditure.
I have also felt a certain frustration with the county. Although it has made it clear to hon. Members that it would like more money, it unfortunately did not apply for it by 10 January, as it should have. It says that it sent a nice letter to the Minister expressing concern, but did not make the appropriate application.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), who is a resident of Rochford, and I, as a resident of Southend, offered to arrange meetings with Ministers to try to resolve the problem if the county would drop its quota proposals in the meantime, it sadly extended the consultation period, and said that the issue could not be prejudged. Essex Members are afraid that something will be done after the consultation period, unfortunately without the issue being as carefully resolved as would be appropriate.
I want the Minister to consider six specific questions and give some guidance on them. First, is the money provided for fire stations within the standard spending assessments for the counties inadequate, and, if so, why?
After I had looked for guidance on the Government's views on fire services, the only major report that I could locate was a wonderful report by the Comptroller and Auditor General in November 1992. In his fundamental review, he pointed out four alarming developments: first, that fires, fire casualties and fire losses were increasing; secondly, that more deaths and injuries were being caused in the home than anywhere else from any other activity; thirdly, that there were prevention problems; and, fourthly, that performance indicators were needed.
None the less, we are well aware that, in most counties, financing appears to be inadequate within the overall settlement. We want to know why that is so. Counties throughout the country will not spend more on one activity unless there is a special need for it.
The second issue on which I would appreciate guidance is whether provision is made in the settlement for a major national activity within a county—for example, the airport at Stansted, which requires more fire cover. It would be unfortunate if fire stations were removed from the south of the county because of problems in a national airport, which is basically not a county responsibility.
Thirdly, is there a case for reviewing the principles on the basis of which the reviews are carried out? It strikes me that the enormous increase in traffic and congestion since the principles were drawn up has created a new problem.
Fourthly, retained firefighters are extremely relevant and significant, especially in Rochford, where we have a temporary station. However, a new problem has been created by the jobseeker's allowance. I am sure that the allowance is splendid, and that the Government introduced it as an exciting new development, but it is alleged that special problems are being created because the jobseeker's allowance takes such a form that those who previously worked part time as retained fire officers now find it difficult to do so because of the allowance's provisions.
The fifth point on which I would appreciate guidance relates to the interim budget published by the county council. I have no wish to enter into battle with the county council, although a different party is in charge, but this is a point of principle. The county council proposes a cut of £651,000 in the cost of employment, which would undoubtedly mean a reduction in the number employed.
I understand that any such reduction will bring some stations under complement, and that special approval will be required from the Government under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. If any such proposals were made to reduce the number of firefighters and put stations below the appropriate number, will special Government permission be required?
My sixth point is important, and I should appreciate the Minister's views on it. Will he confirm that the closure proposals cannot go ahead unless the Government say that they are in accordance with the principles for the fire service? It is important for the local community to know that, after 1 May and whichever party is in charge, the county council will need Government approval for any proposed closures of fire stations.
Given the special problems in Essex, it would be immensely helpful if the Minister could confirm that Government approval would be required. If a review of the Essex fire service were being considered, it could then be established whether it was working efficiently, as both the county and the fire service claim, and whether it was fulfilling its obligations. That is important for the local community, so that we can see whether the Government will make a decision on the basis of the facts.
Although the hard-working Minister, whom I admire for taking his responsibility seriously, must sit on the Front Bench and hear complaints from hon. Members on both sides of the House, he should appreciate that this is not simply hon. Members shouting for their constituencies. The fact that the hon. Member for Thurrock make his excellent speech last week without trying to make party politics, and that hon. Members on this side of the House who agree on nothing have worked together, show that this is a point of principle.
Southend-on-Sea faces the possibility of three local fire stations closing, and local residents are genuinely alarmed and concerned. I was present in Southend when we had the big fire on the pier, and when a huge fire took place in a factory in Southchurch road. It is alarming. The official figures show that fires are increasing and public safety is very much at risk. If the Government can look at this issue seriously and with interest, they will genuinely provide some comfort to the people of Southend, Rochford, Canvey Island and other places.
I emphasise to the Government that this is a real and serious issue. It must be addressed. It cannot be swept under the carpet, and Members of Parliament—from all parties—who represent Essex are absolutely adamant that we will not allow it to happen.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I shall be brief, as I do not wish to rehearse the arguments that I advanced last week.
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and to reinforce his point that, nationally, the fire service is underfunded. I hope that that matter is addressed, whatever the political complexion of Her Majesty's Government, because it is a much-valued service.
My second point relates to airports. As the House knows, the police service is fully chargeable to the owners and operators of airports, and there is a compelling case for the fire service facilities that are provided as a back-up to the airport's fire service to be wholly, or at least in part, charged to airport operators. I recognise that these are much wider long-term policy issues, but I hope that the Government will consider them.
Another point that needs to be reinforced is that Essex county council asked for a meeting with Baroness Blatch, but at the time that was felt inappropriate. Now, the hon. Member for Southend, East has offered to use his good offices in pressing for a meeting with Ministers. I support that, but I understand that the county council now says that it does not think that a meeting will be appropriate or useful. I hope that the Minister will, on his own initiative, following the representations of hon. Members, say that there will be a meeting without preconditions.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and myself was that, if the


county would drop its plans in the meantime, we would be glad to seek meetings. That would be the right way to go ahead. Then we could have meetings without preconditions. I am sure that the hon. Member for Thurrock will agree, in view of the strength of his opinion and the fight that he is putting up for his local residents, that the best first step would be to drop the proposals and then to talk.

Mr. Mackinlay: I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman on this matter. There needs to be a meeting. The county council should follow the hon. Gentleman's advice on this and meet the Minister. I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will say that his door is open and that he will write to the county council and invite it to come along and have a chinwag about this very serious crisis.
If, as a consequence of the review or the county council's budget, there is to be a reduction in the number of fire personnel, appliances or fire stations, I hope that the Minister will say that there will be an inquiry under section 19. It is very important. We, the people of Essex, want our day in court on this matter, and to be able to rehearse to the Government and the county council the full extent and ramifications of any reduction in fire service provision in the county.
Regardless of whether there is a meeting—I hope that there will be one—there should be an inquiry if there is any diminution in the level of fire cover in our county as a result of the review or the budget reductions.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) on securing this debate, which mirrors the debate that we had only a week ago on the same subject.
My hon. Friend has expressed strong concerns about the provision of fire services in Essex. I understand the concern that hon. Members and their constituents feel about the quality of their fire service and the sensitivities that inevitably surround any proposals, such as those under consideration in Essex, to change the arrangements for providing fire cover. My hon. Friend took part in last week's debate on fire services in Essex, which was initiated by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).
I appreciate that the subject of today's debate goes a little wider than the particular concerns of Essex, but many of the same issues arise, so I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me if I repeat some of the points that I made a week ago.
We have every reason to be proud of our fire service. As the Audit Commission said, we can be proud of the fire service's record in responding to incidents, the high level of skill and professionalism it shows, and its very able managers and courageous front-line staff. The Government wholeheartedly endorse those sentiments. Essex has a particularly high standard, and met the required response times to fire calls on 96 per cent. of occasions.
On the specific question of proposed changes to fire provision locally, I should make it clear that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has a

specific and limited role under section 19 of the Act. He is required to be notified of the number of the fire authority's fire stations, fire appliances and firefighting posts as at 1 January each year. The fire authority may not reduce its establishment—although it can increase it—without his specific consent.
As I explained last week, my right hon. and learned Friend grants those approvals only where he is satisfied that the authority has consulted properly about its proposals and considered any representations, and where Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services advises that the nationally recommended fire cover standards will be maintained.
We have not received any section 19 application from Essex about the proposals that have been made in respect of its fire cover review. All fire authorities review their fire cover arrangements periodically to keep them up to date. I know that Essex county council is currently consulting about its proposals.

Dr. Robert Spink: Does my hon. Friend regret the county council's new policy to delay its decision on this matter until after the county elections on 1 May? That delay is causing great anxiety to all the people of Essex, particularly those who live on Canvey Island.

Mr. Sackville: I certainly condemn any delay motivated by politics. If the council is trying to seek changes, it should come up front with them and bring them forward at such time as it is ready. Obviously I cannot speak in any detail about what is happening with those proposals, but I hope that they will be brought forward promptly. It would be quite wrong for such political interests to become involved.

Mr. Eric Pickles: Does my hon. Friend understand that one of the consequences of the delay is an inability to implement policies that would protect the service? Is he further aware that the Conservative opposition on the county council will produce a budget next week that protects the number of firefighters and stations?
Given the overall position of the county council, which enjoyed the largest reserves last year of any county council and still enjoys a very large reserve, is my hon. Friend not left with the impression that the Liberal and Labour controlling group are relying on the good will of Conservative Members by using these tactics, when it is quite clear that there are alternatives that protect stations and firefighters?

Mr. Sackville: I cannot go into whether the council should make section 19 applications, but I reiterate what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point. If it is to make any applications, it should do so promptly. Any delay in bringing them forward will undoubtedly add to the problems of forward planning. I hope that the people who make those decisions will hear what my hon. Friends have said. I hope that the county council will listen very carefully to the points that hon. Members have made in this debate and in the debate last week.
In the event that a section 19 application is made, my right hon. and learned Friend will also take into account any representations made directly to him.
I assure hon. Members that, should the county council make such an application, my right hon. and learned Friend, in reaching his decision, will take full account of the representations that he receives, including those made in this debate. In answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, it is my clear understanding that any major change of the sort to which he referred would have to be the subject of a section 19 application.
Mention has been made of the power that my right hon. and learned Friend has under section 19(8) of the 1947 Act to hold a public local inquiry. That has happened very occasionally in the past, but it is always open to the Home Secretary to do so in any such application.
I referred last week to the national recommended standards, which various hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, have called into question. Those standards dictate the initial response to a fire in terms of weight and speed of attack. They rest on four main standards of service according to the risk category in which an area has been placed, and assume for each category that a predetermined number of firefighting appliances should attend within a certain time.
The standards are not just nationally recommended: they are nationally agreed in the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, which is constituted under the Fire Services Act 1947 to represent fire service interests. The council undertook an extensive review of the standards in 1985. They enable all concerned to know where they stand as regards the minimum level of service that should be delivered.
As I said last week, we believe that those standards have served us well, but that does not mean that we regard them as unchangeable or incapable of improvement. The Audit Commission has recommended that there should be a further review of the levels of fire cover. It recognised, however, that no fundamental change should be considered without careful research. A review of fire cover standards is being taken forward by the joint committee of the advisory councils for England, Wales and Scotland.

Dr. Spink: I agree with what my hon. Friend said about fire standards. They are probably appropriate, and I am delighted that he is examining them. However, the problem is not the standards themselves, but the assumptions made when using those standards to calculate where fire resources should be placed in Essex.
Those assumptions are inappropriate in that they assume an average speed of 30 mph for all areas of Essex, when clearly the average speed attainable by fire engines in the north and rural areas is far greater than the average speed attainable by fire engines trying to get on to Canvey Island or through Hadleigh, which is very congested. The problem is the assumptions that are made in applying the standards in this specific case.

Mr. Sackville: That shows the need for a further review. Another example of the problem is the existence of a major international airport. Those considerations must form part of the review.
The Government have shown their commitment to the fire service by confirming, in the final local government settlement, that we shall increase the fire service element of standard spending assessment in England for the coming year by £50 million, which is an increase of more than 4 per cent. I believe that that is a satisfactory settlement. Within that, we must expect a continued search for efficiency savings, as with any organisation in the public or private sector anywhere in the country. Many parts of both sectors have found such savings.
It was notable that the Audit Commission's report said that, if all fire services came up to the level of the best—if, indeed, that is the best achievable, and it may not be—considerable savings would be possible without effecting the standard of fire cover. All fire services must take that into account.
The fire standard spending assessment distribution formula takes into account a number of factors. The problem with any proposal to change the formula is to find an alternative that does not unreasonably increase the grant to some brigades and disproportionately reduce it to others. Many counties feel that they have specific characteristics that make them a special case.
If local authority representative organisations—or a single organisation in the future—were to agree on a new formula, the Government would consider carefully how they could improve allocation among the counties. This matter is not simple: one county may believe that it has particular difficulties, whereas there may be special difficulties of a completely different nature in other parts of the country, such as remote or hilly regions, that must be taken into account.

Mr. David Amess: Following my hon. Friend's speech last week, stories appeared in local newspapers saying, "Minister supports cuts" or "Minister supports closure of local fire stations". Is he a little surprised to learn that that is how his speech last week was interpreted?

Mr. Sackville: I shall consult Hansard, but I think that I will find that I never said any such thing. I said very clearly that, if applications were received to reduce provision at any fire station or part thereof, the Home Secretary would have to make a decision. I want to put the record straight. No decisions have been taken on any reduction in provision.

Mr. Mackinlay: I want to take a bipartisan approach to this matter. I was present last week, and the Minister certainly did not say that. If any grotty newspaper said he did, it should read Hansard. I do not know who the guilty party is, but I want to make it clear that the Minister listened to us and did not say that. There should be accurate reporting of this matter.

Mr. Sackville: I do not know to which grotty newspapers in his constituency the hon. Gentleman is referring.

Mr. Mackinlay: It is not one in my constituency.

Mr. Sackville: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support.
If Essex county council feels that it does not have sufficient resources, various options are open to it. As has already been said, it had an opportunity to meet Ministers at the Department of the Environment to discuss the rate support grant settlement, but chose not to do so. If the authority were to set a budget above its cap, the county would have an opportunity—which I am sure it would take—to put its case to Ministers in person and to challenge the level at which it was designated.
It must also be kept in mind that fire service spending in Essex during the current year is £39.3 million out of a total base budget of £976.7 million: so it represents about 4 per cent. of total county spending. If the council cannot find savings elsewhere in administration, it could increase the amount of resources that it allocates to fire to more than the current planned level. I am sure that the people of Essex would expect the council to do just that.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Because of the shortage of time, would the Minister respond in writing to my questions, especially that on the jobseeker's allowance?

Mr. Sackville: I am happy to respond to that specific question. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend receives a letter within a short time.

Mr. Mackinlay: I want to make it quite clear that the newspapers in my constituency report these debates with clarity and precision: it was certainly not a newspaper in my area. I feel sorry for the hon. Members who are not covered by the Thurrock Gazette and the Thurrock Recorder.

Mr. Sackville: I am grateful for that assurance.
It being two minutes to Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Nigeria

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussion he has had with the Nigerian military Government concerning the restoration of democratic institutions to Nigeria. [13954]

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the current human rights situation in Nigeria. [13968]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. Liam Fox): I apologise for the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is attending the ministerial meeting in Singapore between the Association of South-East Asian Nations and the European Union.
My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development held discussions with the Nigerian authorities at the highest level, most recently during the Commonwealth ministerial action group visit in November. We remain extremely concerned about the human rights situation in Nigeria, and the lack of progress towards the restoration of democracy in that country.

Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend is right to be very cautious about any promises that come from the military regime. As he will know, Members of Parliament attended the presidential election as observers. It was clear that Chief Abiola won that election, and that the military regime simply discarded the result. Can my hon. Friend be certain that the regime's current assurances about restoring democracy are real, or are they merely illusory?

Dr. Fox: We continue to monitor progress with the transitional timetable. The local elections on a party basis, which are now due on 15 March, are the next important benchmark, and they must be free and fair.

Mr. Pike: The Minister will know that 19 Ogoni activists are still being held in prison, on charges similar to those applying to the nine who were executed in 1995 under a seriously flawed legal system. The prisoners are being held in appalling conditions, and it has been said that one has gone blind as a result. What do the British Government feel they can do to ensure that those people are released as soon as possible, and that human rights are restored in Nigeria?

Dr. Fox: I raised those points myself in a recent Adjournment debate. We have made representations about prison conditions. We have made it clear to the Nigerian authorities that we expect the Ogoni 19 to be released—or to be brought to a properly constituted court that respects human rights—and that any further trials by the tribunal that tried Ken Saro Wiwa would provoke an extremely serious international reaction.

Sir David Steel: Is the Minister making particular representations to the Nigerian authorities about the

continued detention of General Obasanjo? Does he recognise that the general was the only president of Nigeria—the only military ruler, that is—who handed over to a democracy, and that since then he has played a distinguished part in providing democracy throughout the continent of Africa? His continued detention is an international outrage.

Dr. Fox: The detention of political prisoners in Nigeria is indeed a cause for international outrage in many cases, as the Commonwealth ministerial action group made extremely plain during its last visit. We will continue to make that clear on every occasion. It is one of the most obvious abuses of human rights that we looked at.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister will remember that Nigeria played a role in bringing democracy to South Africa. Will he confirm that the Government have shared with the Nigerian authorities the idea that democracy has nothing to do with white and black, but has to do with the rights of people?

Dr. Fox: I entirely agree. We will take every opportunity to tell the Nigerian Government exactly what we expect from them. There must be a move towards proper democracy in that country: we cannot help it with aid projects and international finance if it does not respect human rights and basic democratic principles.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the Minister realise that, although I am sure that General Abacha took note of the recent Adjournment debate and the Minister's welcome comments, when the Commonwealth ministerial action group went to Nigeria, the fact that the Canadians were not part of the group gave a clear signal to General Abacha that little would come of that visit and that he used it for propaganda purposes? What tough action will we get from next week's CMAG meeting, and what signals will be given to Nigeria that the present lack of progress towards democracy is simply unacceptable?

Dr. Fox: CMAG does of course meet next week and it will make clear what we expect. At the meeting, we will demand the immediate release of all political prisoners, including Chief Abiola, the restoration of a democracy in which all can participate, the early resolution of the Ogoni 19 case, as I have already mentioned, and a review of prison conditions.

Cyprus

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Cyprus to discuss the recent increase in tension there. [13955]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has no present plans to visit Cyprus. He did so in December 1996, when he held discussions with President Clerides and Mr. Denktash.

Mr. Waterson: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on what I believe was the first visit by a British Foreign Secretary to Cyprus for some 30 years? Will my right hon. Friend the Minister of State restate


the Government's commitment to relieving tension, where possible, in Cyprus, and to achieving a lasting settlement on that island? Does he agree that early accession to the European Union would benefit considerably both communities on the island?

Mr. Davis: Certainly. I first commend my hon. Friend on his hard work and perseverance on behalf of the people of Cyprus over a long period. He is right. The Foreign Secretary's visit did reflect our commitment to the interest of Cyprus's people and to achieving a solution to the Cyprus problem. We support accession to the European Union on the basis that it will benefit all Cyprus's people—in fact, people in north Cyprus will make particular financial gain—and in the hope that the accession process will help rather than hinder the resolution of the Cyprus problem.

Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept my additional congratulations to the Foreign Secretary on his sagacity, after many years of inaction by those on the Front Benches of both sides, that he should actually visit both communities in Cyprus? Will he accept from me—I do not think it is historically deniable—that these intrusions that are causing the tensions are invariably organised by Greek-Cypriot demonstrators? Is it not highly regrettable that involved in those demonstrations into the buffer territory, which is forbidden territory for both parties, are leading Members of the European Parliament?

Mr. Davis: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. What I will say is that we have to be even-handed with both communities. That is the secret to progress on the matter. When my right hon. and learned Friend went to Cyprus, he made a statement on a 10-point programme to promote the solution of the Cyprus problem. That programme has been lodged in the Library, and I recommend that the hon. Gentleman examines it.

Sir David Madel: If Turkish troops withdrew from northern Cyprus, which would be the first step in a solution, who do the Government think should then be responsible for guaranteeing the rights of the minority Turkish-Cypriot population?

Mr. Davis: There is a need for a reduction in military weaponry and presence on both sides. Only by that route will there be a reduction in the tensions that afflict Cyprus. Under the circumstances of accession to the EU and of a solution of the Cyprus problem, we would expect international guarantees for all Cyprus's people.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister will be aware that I also visited Cyprus last month. May I support his statement that Cyprus's accession to the European Union would both increase the sense of security of Cyprus's residents and increase pressure on Ankara to reach a settlement? Will he therefore tell the House that the British Government will not make settlement of the division of the island a precondition of Cyprus's accession to the European Union? Does he realise that to set such a precondition could create the danger of a Turkish veto?

Mr. Davis: I have said in the House several times that we have never accepted either an explicit or an implicit

Turkish veto, and that we would not allow a situation to arise in which such a veto could be exercised. However, accession would undoubtedly be easier if there were a solution. To meet the Union's requirement for free movement of people—to give the right hon. Gentleman one simple example—would be rather difficult in the current circumstances.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I, too, congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on paying a non-partisan visit to both sides of the island. Is my right hon. Friend aware that we remain the international guarantor of peace on the island, and that it is therefore very much our role to try to promote peace among both sides? Does he agree that the way in which to accomplish that is for both sides eventually to become members of the European Union, and that any arms build-up now by either side is extremely unhelpful?

Mr. Davis: I think that everything that my hon. Friend has said is entirely right. We have demonstrated our commitment to an active role in the promotion of peace, most recently—other than the Foreign Secretary's visit—by appointing Sir David Hannay to promote the cause of peace and a settlement on the island. We will do that in an even-handed manner, as vigorously and as effectively as we are capable.

International Criminal Court

Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress to date in establishing an international criminal court. [13956]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): We are actively contributing to the preparatory work for a diplomatic conference to finalise and adopt a convention for the establishment of an international criminal court.

Dr. Wright: Could anyone who saw this Monday's harrowing "Panorama" programme on Rwanda doubt that the need for an international criminal court is extremely urgent? Could it be true that, for reasons of cost, the United States is seeking to delay if not block next year's conference, which may launch such a court? Could it even be true, as the human rights report suggests, that the British Government are using blocking tactics on the proposal? Is not the most appropriate manner for the international community to open a new millennium to set up such an international criminal court? With our history and our traditions, should not we be giving a lead?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I certainly do agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is time we had an international criminal court, and the Government have been playing a very active role in both the ad hoc and the preparatory committee work. There is a great deal to be done before we reach the stage of being able to propose a detailed treaty that will establish such a court, but it is absolutely untrue that our Government are trying to block that move. We are encouraging it and working towards it. I cannot speak for the United States Government, but I know of no such action on their part, either.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. However, does he agree that there would be


much more credibility if only action were taken to bring Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Mladic before some type of international tribunal? Does he also agree that Mr. Milosevic should also be investigated when such a court is established?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I do not think that we should muddle an international criminal court, which is the subject of this question, and the ad hoc tribunal for war crimes, which has been set up with regard to Bosnia. Certainly I agree with my hon. Friend that those who are responsible for war crimes must be brought to that tribunal and tried for the crimes that they are alleged to have committed.

Mr. Macdonald: Does the Minister agree that it is important to prevent war crimes as well as to prosecute war criminals? What are the Government therefore doing about the situation in west Mostar, where ethnic cleansing has been resumed against Muslim civilians by the local Croat mafia? Is that not in complete defiance of the Dayton agreement?

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to a specific area. The question is on establishing an international criminal court. It is totally unfair that he should attempt to raise a specific issue when we are dealing with a general one.

China

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans has he to make an official visit to China to discuss United Kingdom-Sino relations. [13957]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has at present no plans to visit China. However, he will meet the Chinese Foreign Minister at the Asia-Europe meeting in Singapore this week and will have a full bilateral meeting with him on Friday.

Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his advice about the meeting on Friday. Does he agree that one way to improve our already reasonable relationship with China would be to increase the number of Chinese students able to study in the United Kingdom? Will he therefore do his utmost to place on the agenda for Friday's talks an increase in the number of scholarships available to Chinese people? I am certain that that would do a great deal to improve our relations with the Chinese.

Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. In 1995–96, Her Majesty's Government supported 450 students from China under various scholarship schemes. A new scheme for joint funding with the private sector got under way last year and a further similar scheme is being taken forward. An additional 192 Chinese scholars came to the United Kingdom in 1995–96 under the Overseas Development Administration's technical co-operation training programme. We shall continue to support scholarship and training programmes for Chinese students and to explore possible new initiatives within the limits of our resources.
I am afraid that the agenda on Friday will be very full. Because we already have a reasonably successful programme of students coming to the United Kingdom, I doubt that the issue will be on the agenda.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister understand that the Secretary of State will have support from both sides of the House later this week when he seeks to persuade the Chinese Government to respect the democratic reforms introduced by Governor Patten? Does he agree that the maintenance of the reforms should not be just a bilateral matter between the United Kingdom and China? What steps are the Government taking to mobilise the opinion of the international community to persuade the Chinese Government to respect the democratic reforms?

Mr. Hanley: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that such important issues as the future of human rights and democracy in Hong Kong should not be matters only of bilateral relations. That is one reason why we were cheered by the international community's response to the decisions on the provisional legislature when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State summoned the Chinese ambassador on 20 December. When the Chinese decided to water down the Bill of Rights ordnance, the international community, particularly the United States, was very supportive. I know that the whole world is taking a keen interest in the matter.

Mr. Renton: Will the Foreign Secretary be discussing the steps that Britain intends to take after the handover to China to discharge its responsibilities under the 1984 joint agreement, particularly once the joint liaison group has ceased to exist in 2000? Is there not a case for establishing a special parliamentary committee to keep in touch with the high level of autonomy that Hong Kong is promised under the agreement?

Mr. Hanley: My right hon. Friend is right that it is important for the House to continue to exercise its scrutiny over the future administration of Hong Kong. He is also right to point out that we have obligations under the joint declaration. The joint liaison group will continue until 1 January 2000. We have an obligation for the next 50 years under the joint declaration to monitor the "one country, two systems" principle. The House will want to monitor the progress of Hong Kong. How it does that is a matter for the House to decide. We had a useful debate recently, and there is no doubt that the mood of hon. Members on both sides was that there should be proper scrutiny by the House. The exact form is yet to be determined.

Mr. Fatchett: May I associate the Labour party with the words of the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell)? We all agree that it is crucial that respect for human rights continues in Hong Kong after 1 July this year. We want to send the message again from the House to the Government of China that respect for human rights has been important in Hong Kong's way of life and economic success.
Will the Minister make it clear that, apart from the points that he has already made about marshalling international opinion, he will ensure that the Government


take the toughest possible line against the Chinese proposals to repeal the human rights legislation and go ahead with the provisional legislature? Will he make it clear what action the Government intend to take, and make it abundantly clear that everybody here expects China to honour its agreement after 1 July, and that there will be continuing respect for human rights in Hong Kong?

Mr. Hanley: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's co-operation in these matters and for the dialogue that we have established, which goes too for his right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the shadow Foreign Secretary, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary himself.
It is important that the House has basic agreements on matters of such importance as, for instance, the establishment of the provisional legislature and the Bill of Rights ordinance. My right hon. and learned Friend set out the Government's considered view on the provisional legislature on 20 December. There is no basis for China's plans in the joint declaration or the Basic Law.
We are greatly concerned about the proposals of the preparatory committee's legal sub-group for the Bill of Rights ordinance, which has largely been endorsed by the preparatory committee in plenary. That has done great damage to Hong Kong, as I discovered only a week ago, and will have done great damage to confidence in Hong Kong around the world. I made a formal protest to the Chinese ambassador on 22 January. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend is urging Qian Qichen, the Chinese Vice Premier and Foreign Minister, to think again.

Mr. David Howell: Further to the questions asked about Hong Kong, does not article 3 of the 1984 joint declaration specifically say that the laws and rights of the people of Hong Kong will continue after the handover? Are not the proposals of the provisional legislature flatly in breach of that treaty? What steps are we going to take when a treaty that we have signed in solemn good faith is so flagrantly breached?

Mr. Hanley: My right hon. Friend is right to say that, when such agreements are breached we should query them, and query them with great resolve. The key issues still cause great concern. I believe that we in the House have accepted the principle of the joint declaration of one country two systems, not one country two economic systems. The very stuff of human rights, the recipe that has gone on to make up Hong Kong, which is not purely economic and contains the most remarkable sparks, has created the miracle that needs to be preserved for its continued success. We shall continue to press the Chinese on what we believe are breaches of the joint declaration.

Iraq

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on peace negotiations in northern Iraq. [13958]

Mr. Hanley: Our objective in northern Iraq is peace and the well being of the people there. With the United States of America and Turkey we established and have consolidated a ceasefire between the Kurdish Democratic

party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. We continue to be involved in discussions to help them resolve their differences and we are making encouraging progress.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister agree that part of any peace process must include bringing those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide to justice? Will he therefore add his support to the campaign "Indict" launched in the House of Commons with all-party support and the support of the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats to bring Saddam Hussein and his closest supporters in the current regime in Iraq before an international tribunal to answer for their crimes?

Mr. Hanley: I must pay tribute to the hon. Lady, because I believe that nobody in the House has studied the matter more assiduously or shown such great courage by visiting the area in northern Iraq where the Kurds are at the moment. I assure her that we share the objective of wanting those responsible for the appalling atrocities that she has described, especially Saddam Hussein, to be brought to justice. They deserve the widespread condemnation that they have received from the international community and the House. We are open to suggestions on how to bring those responsible to justice; it is not of course easy. We doubt that the process that led to the Yugoslavian tribunal can be duplicated for Iraq. The circumstances are different, not least because of the passage of time since the events in question.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that Saddam Hussein denies democracy to his people, and is the biggest threat to peace in the middle east, emphasises the need for the strongest possible sanctions against Iraq? Can my right hon. Friend guarantee that our European friends follow such a policy?

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right. The recent acceptance of United Nations Security Council resolution 986 will not mean the lifting of sanctions. It is a humanitarian gesture to allow the people of Iraq, with whom we have no argument, to be fed and to receive medical assistance. It is vital that the people of Iraq are fed, because they have been starved and deprived of medical assistance by Saddam Hussein for too long. There are no grounds for relaxing any of the sanctions, given Saddam Hussein's refusal to respect the relevant UN resolutions.

Economic and Monetary Union

Mr. Kevin Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants in his Department are currently working on issues relating to economic and monetary union. [13959]

Mr. David Davis: No Foreign and Commonwealth Office official is assigned exclusively to EMU issues, which are dealt with alongside other EU policy matters. EMU bears on the responsibility of a number of FCO departments.

Mr. Hughes: That is a pity, because such officials might have warned the Foreign Secretary and his Minister about the problems. The chairman of Unilever warned


today that, if the Government did not sign up to the single currency, the company would reconsider its investment in this country. Given that Unilever employs some 21,000 people, should not the Foreign Secretary reconsider his comment on Radio 4 last week that we might stay out, even if the terms are right?

Mr. Davis: I do not know whether we need an official for that, but the hon. Gentleman needs a new research assistant. He has not noticed that this country has received maximum inward investment in the past decade, compared with the rest of the European Union. That investment has come here for a variety of reasons, and we are the number one destination for German overseas investment. That is true this year, as it was last year and the year before, and the investors know our policy on monetary union.

Mr. Wilkinson: Can officials and Ministers in the Foreign Office find time to read the admirable letter from Brian Reading in today's Financial Times, which suggests that there is little likelihood that the Federal Republic of Germany will ever, in the foreseeable future, achieve the proportion of national debt to gross national product that is required under the Maastricht treaty? Is it not clear from the recession and unemployment levels in Germany and elsewhere that economic and monetary union is not working?

Mr. Davis: I thank my hon. Friend for his recommendation. Similar analyses were the reason why my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said that it was unlikely—not impossible, but unlikely—that EMU could safely proceed in 1999. That is an issue that must be faced by all those who say that it can proceed. We do not have monetary union at the moment, but the other European countries have a different social model, which has led to the tragic circumstances—we cannot take any pleasure from them—of an increase of 500,000 in the German unemployment figures in a month and a total unemployment figure of 4.6 million. That is the result of a different approach to competitiveness, and I do not recommend that we follow it.

Mr. Robin Cook: Can the Minister confirm that two officials in the Foreign Office who are working on EMU are the special advisers to the Foreign Secretary? The Sunday Telegraph reported that those advisers had drawn up 12 different positions on the single currency, from which Tory Members could pick the policy of their choice.
Are there any other examples of ministerial advisers helping Back Benchers to express their opposition to departmental policy, rather than their support?
Did the Minister hear the chairman of the 1922 Committee state to the world that he had been assured by the Prime Minister that Tory Members of Parliament are free to pick the policy of their choice on the single currency for their election addresses? Does he not recognise that a party that has abandoned any attempt to require its members to support the Government is a party that has lost the right to continue in government?

Mr. Davis: I could make a couple of points if the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about election addresses. I recommend that he addresses his question to the right

hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who pointed out that scores of Labour Members would take their own view on monetary union.
It is amazing, brazen cheek for Labour to take this line. The most famous election address in history is that of the Leader of the Labour party in 1983, in which he undertook to leave the European Union, to abandon the nuclear deterrent and to continue nationalisation—all issues that Labour would be embarrassed to take on today.
Ten days ago, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said on television:
if it goes ahead and if it succeeds, in other words if it is stable then you cannot stay out".
That is Labour's view on monetary union, and, in the unfortunate event of there being a Labour Government, that is exactly what would happen. Every Labour Government have presided over increases in unemployment, expenditure and inflation and reductions in the value of sterling, so they could not stay out.

Kenya

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between the United Kingdom and Kenya. [13960]

Dr. Liam Fox: We have long-standing and deep-rooted links with Kenya, which is one of our most significant partners in Africa. The bilateral relationship spans wide-ranging areas of activity, many of which are outside the framework of Government contacts. We maintain a close dialogue with the Kenyan authorities on a wide range of issues.

Mr. Butler: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the development of the East African Community involving Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda? What efforts is the Foreign Office making to ensure that that operation is a success?

Dr. Fox: Yes, it is a rare delight to give the House good news about east Africa. We are convinced that the revival of the EAC signals a fundamental shift towards a closer relationship between the three countries. That is an essential step towards creating mutual confidence, which I believe will improve the political situation no end in east Africa. Under our development division in east Africa, the Overseas Development Administration has agreed to assist the EAC secretariat to develop new management systems—to which it attaches a high priority—through the provision of technical assistance.

Land Mines

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the changes in Government policy in respect of land mines in the past two years. [13961]

Mr. David Davis: Last April, I announced our support for a total global ban on anti-personnel land mines as soon as possible, severe restrictions on the use of anti-personnel land mines by our armed forces, the destruction of nearly


half our existing stocks and the extension of our export moratorium to prohibit the export of all anti-personnel land mines to all countries.

Mr. Cohen: Would the Government like to be popular just before the election? Have they seen the opinion poll that showed that 90 per cent. of those questioned agreed with Princess Diana that there should be a worldwide ban on the construction and use of anti-personnel land mines? Instead of being a loose cannon on this issue, and following delaying and diversionary tactics in Geneva, why do the Government not give unequivocal support to the Ottawa process to get a ban on these hideous weapons?

Mr. Davis: It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman wrote his supplementary question before he had heard my reply, in which I said that the Government's policy is to pursue a global ban on anti-personnel land mines. I can give him an impartial view of the matter. 'When Princess Diana was in Angola and this subject was on all the front pages, the gentleman leading the delegation, Mr. Mike Whitlam—the head of the British Red Cross—told the "Today" programme:
I read the statement put out by the British Government last year … headlined 'Working towards a global ban on anti-personnel landmines' and at the time they brought in a number of measures which move the whole scenario further towards that end. So we were delighted when the British Government took those steps last year and certainly I am not aware that we were out of step".
I agree with him.
The hon. Gentleman made a serious point about the Ottawa process. We take the view, as do the United Nations Secretary-General and others, that the conference on disarmament is the best place in which to progress it. If we find that the process allows us to achieve more progress with the countries of concern—the producers and exporters of large quantities of land mines, or those who use them irresponsibly—we will support it.

Mr. Wigley: I welcome the progress that the Government have made, and urge the Minister to go the rest of the way and do away with all stocks of land mines held by the United Kingdom. Does he agree that it was totally inappropriate for anyone to describe Princess Diana's involvement as that of a loose cannon? We would be better off having more loose cannons firing humanitarian salvoes than more loose land mines blowing off children's legs.

Mr. Davis: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's long-term interest in the subject; indeed, when I announced our policy last year it was in response to a question from him. The noble Lord involved said that he did not recognise the words attributed to him in the press, and I have every reason to believe him.
Although, to take up what the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said, there is no political advantage in it, I was pleased to see all the coverage, because we have to recognise the fact that 20,000 lives are shattered or destroyed every year. We are trying to alleviate that problem.
I will reflect the question about our land mine use back to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). As he is aware, as the recipient of my answer, we will allow the use of anti-personnel land mines only by ministerial

instruction, and only if it is absolutely necessary. We have to address the problem of how to change the policy of the countries that export, produce or misuse those land mines.
Last year, for example, we managed to get China to agree not to export undetectable land mines—the worst sort, because once in place they cannot be removed. That is the line that we are taking: the one that will give the best progress. To that end, the hon. Member for Caernarfon should know, as he is an honourable and honest man, that this country has been at the forefront of those that are acting to remove land mines from the countries most afflicted by them, and has spent £22 million on it to date.

Mr. Key: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks, and I commend the Government on their policy, which is right both in seeking to establish international action and in supporting practical measures on the ground for the removal of mines. May I suggest, however, that £22 million over five years in humanitarian aid to the agencies removing those mines is. not enough and that it would be very well received if my hon. Friend agreed to double that amount? If he would like suggestions as to where the aid programme could be adjusted, I would be delighted to make some.

Mr. Davis: The Chancellor might have a word with me if I gave a commitment straight away, but I make two points to my hon. Friend. First, our land mine aid has accelerated rapidly in recent years, so to look at it over five years is slightly misleading; and, secondly, it is demand led: the more projects come up, the more we can consider doing. I spoke only last week to Mike Whitlam, the director of the British Red Cross, about that exact point.

Cyprus

Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps he has taken to help to achieve a settlement of the Cyprus problem. [13962]

Mr. David Davis: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier.

Mr. Corbett: I welcome the present Foreign Secretary's visit to Cyprus, and that of the next Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). Have the Government received reports of what in my recollection was a unique get-together of leaders of political parties from both Cypriot communities that took place recently in the former Ledra Palace hotel on the green line and, if so, what does the Minister make of it? Will he give the House a commitment that he will do all that he can to encourage contacts between politicians, teachers, doctors, lawyers, trade unionists, business people and others from both communities to try to change the climate in favour of a settlement of the Cyprus problem?

Mr. Davis: As I have said, we will do everything we can to promote any method of improving the situation and of devising a solution to the Cyprus problem. Of course,


I will do everything possible along those lines. I hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman's assessment of Cyprus is more accurate than his domestic political forecasts.

Mr. Trimble: I agree with the Minister's earlier comment that the accession of Cyprus to the European Community would benefit the whole island. I hope that that is the basis on which accession takes place. Does he agree that matters would be improved immediately if the European Community stopped discriminating against northern Cyprus in trade matters? That creates the unfortunate impression that the Community is being manipulated in favour of one community in Cyprus, and that should end.

Mr. Davis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The problem is that what he terms discrimination arose from a court judgment, not from pressure of the sort that he describes. As such, there is little that can be done directly about it, but other measures can be designed to help.

Gibraltar

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had about the future of Gibraltar. [13963]

Mr. David Davis: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary regularly meets the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to discuss matters concerning Gibraltar's future. The last such meeting was in London on 18 November. He also met the Spanish Foreign Minister in Madrid on 22 January under the Brussels process to explore the scope for enhanced co-operation between Gibraltar and Spain.

Mr. Evans: I thank the Minister for that reply. Would he take this opportunity to assure the British people and the Gibraltarians that while we have a Conservative Government the Union Jack will continue to fly over Gibraltar and that we will not raise the white flag? Does he also agree that, if that lot over there ever got into power, they would give away Scotland, Wales, the sovereign and this Parliament to the bureaucrats in Brussels and it would not be long before they gave away the rock and its monkeys to Spain, but it takes a monkey to recognise one?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend puts his point much better than I ever could. With respect to his substantive question on the sovereignty of Gibraltar, we gave an undertaking in the 1969 constitution—which this Government will always stand by—that we will never give up the sovereignty of Gibraltar without the free and fully given consent of the Gibraltarian people. We will always stand by that undertaking.

Mr. Mackinlay: I support the Minister on the principles of national self-determination for the people of Gibraltar, but may we also consider their democratic deficit? They are citizens of the European Union, but they have no representation in the European Parliament or in this place. Is there not a case for the people of Gibraltar

having at least some limited representation here, as occurs with comparable territories of the United States and France?

Mr. Davis: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's commitment to Gibraltar and to its people. The question about the European Parliament is not easy to answer because, with 30,000 people, Gibraltar is less than one tenth the size of a British constituency. With respect to his other proposal, I do not think that there is much to be advanced by this country's copying the constitutions of France or the United States.

Yemen

Sir Robert Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the Foreign Minister of Yemen to discuss Anglo-Yemeni relations; and if he will make a statement. [13964]

Mr. Hanley: During his visit to Yemen in November, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State discussed a wide range of bilateral issues with Dr Iryani, including how further to improve political and commercial co-operation between the United Kingdom and Yemen. No further meeting is planned in the near future.

Sir Robert Hicks: Given the nodal position occupied by Yemen and its potential for development, should not the United Kingdom Government be showing more interest in, and giving greater encouragement to, the numerous Yemeni political development and economic programmes? In particular, would not the exciting Aden port redevelopment and free port project be a worthwhile starter?

Mr. Hanley: I agree with my hon. Friend, who I know has visited Yemen quite recently. We are determined to enhance relations with our Yemeni friends, as we have made clear during a succession of recent visits. Not only has the Secretary of State made a rare visit to the Yemen, but so has the Minister for Trade. I visited it a year before the Secretary of State, and the permanent under-secretary at the FCO has visited it in the past couple of weeks. The other way round, the Prime Minister of Yemen, Abd al-Ghani, visited Britain last September and Dr. Iryani has been here recently. We have invited President Saleh to visit at a date yet to be specified this year. My hon. Friend is right that the Aden port project is exciting and offers big opportunities to British companies. I am pleased that British Airways has recently agreed to renew its air services to Yemen.

Mr. Dalyell: Did Dr. Iryani raise the long-standing Yemeni concern about the appalling plight of the children of Iraq and the famine and its consequences? Is it altogether wise to be so definite about sanctions that strengthen, not weaken, Saddam Hussein?

Mr. Hanley: I admit that I discussed the situation in Iraq with Dr. Iryani. I am pleased that, when I met President Saleh, he too expressed regrets about the policy of Saddam Hussein and the way in which the people of


Iraq have been harmed by it. We are having a good exchange of views with Yemen, and I believe that it understands our point of view well.

Mrs. Sherratt

Mr. Day: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by his Department to the Moroccan Government concerning the case of Mrs. Sherratt. [13965]

Dr. Liam Fox: We stand ready to make representations to the Moroccan authorities on behalf of Mrs. Sherratt once we know the outcome of her solicitors' bid to obtain compensation through the courts.

Mr. Day: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He knows that this case is particularly tragic. My constituent was shot by an off-duty Moroccan policeman and is wheelchair-bound and paralysed for the rest of her life. The Moroccan Government deny responsibility, despite the fact that the weapon used was supplied by them. Since I raised this matter at business questions, the Moroccan ambassador has kindly agreed to meet me, for which I am grateful. Legal action may be taken.
I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind the fact that the matter is serious because of the number of British tourists who holiday in Morocco. They must be assured that the Government will look after their interests. Should legal action not be successful—and hopes of success are tenuous—can the matter be raised at ministerial level, if necessary?

Dr. Fox: The shooting in the Hotel Tank was indeed tragic, and two Britons were killed. The gunman's wife was shot, and the gunman committed suicide. Given the circumstances, we believe that this was an isolated incident, not a trend. The problem with compensation is that Morocco does not have an equivalent of our criminal injury compensation scheme. I assure my hon. Friend that, if Mrs. Sherratt cannot obtain satisfaction through the courts, we will consider approaching the Moroccan authorities in the way he suggests.

Racism and Xenophobia

Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the European Union initiative against racism and xenophobia. [13966]

Mr. David Davis: There are two main areas of the initiative: the designation of 1997 as the European Year Against Racism and the EU monitoring centre on racism and xenophobia.

Mr. Gapes: Does the Minister agree that racist and neo-Nazi groups operate internationally, often publishing their material in one country and disseminating it in others? Does he agree that it would be better to have a co-ordinated, legally based, European-wide joint initiative for minimum standards of racial equality? Is it not deplorable that our Government are in a minority of 14 to

one in blocking the initiative to establish a European Union centre to monitor racism, and are opposing EU-wide action against holocaust denial?

Mr. Davis: I believe that, some time ago, the Home Secretary said something about dealing with the issue of material being published in one country and printed in another. Europe has a role in dealing with racism: that of exchanging and disseminating information on how to deal with racism and xenophobia. However, the United Kingdom's domestic race relations legislation is among the most sophisticated in Europe.
If the hon. Gentleman wants effective race relations legislation, the best locus for that is within the nation state, not in a supranational body. That is how the misunderstanding from which he clearly suffers has arisen. We are not blocking progress on the establishment of the observatory; but we are saying that it is appropriate as an intergovernmental measure, not as a measure for the Commission and the European Court in the European Community.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the European Union might make more progress in the fight against xenophobia and racism within the European Union if, instead of setting up institutions to enforce codes of Euro-political correctness, it looked at the competitiveness of the European economy and did something about the rampant unemployment on the continent—the sort of unemployment that would be caused by the policies of the Labour party and lead to the very racism and xenophobia—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is abusing my recognition of him on this question, which relates not to the economy but to a specific issue. Would the Minister like to make some response?

Mr. Davis: My simple response is that when unemployment is maximised it creates an obvious problem by encouraging racism and extremism of all sorts. Britain and other European countries would seek to avoid that.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister condemn the incidents of racism and xenophobia that have been witnessed by NATO peacekeepers in the city of Mostar in recent days? Will he tell the Croatian authorities that there can be no question of progress towards—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is not in Europe".] There can be no question of progress towards Croatian membership of European or other institutions as long as—

Madam Speaker: Order. I call Sir David Knox—let us have a sensible question.

European Union

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Britain's relations with the other countries in the European Union. [13969]

Mr. David Davis: Britain enjoys very good relations with all other member states of the European Union.

Sir David Knox: Does my right hon. Friend believe that relations with other European Union countries would


be improved if their foreign Ministers came to this country to explain, over the heads of the Government, their view of the future of the European Union?

Mr. Davis: It strikes me that that has already happened. A little while ago, the German Foreign Secretary commented about a British election occurring at some point. However, if one accepts that a European Union exists, there are issues that are important to all the peoples of Europe. The British Government note in our policies that many of the people of Europe support the sorts of things that we stand for—sometimes more than their Governments do. We saw that when the Foreign Secretary went to Stockholm and received an enormously good reception for repeating the ideas that he has expressed from the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What are the consequences of an ever-revaluing pound for our commercial relationships with other European Union companies?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman asks a somewhat hypothetical question. It is easier to answer the question: what are the causes of an ever-revaluing pound? The answer is enormous economic success in this country.

Mr. Dykes: Is it not worth recalling that, when Klaus Kinkel commented on British politics at Christmas, he was told to mind his own business, but that we then immediately said that we would construct the convergence criteria statistics for all the other countries and tell them what to do with their own figures? Would it not be a good idea to follow the excellent advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Sir D. Knox)? If foreign statesmen and politicians came over here, they would be able to convey to the long-suffering British public—who, all too often, sad to say, are not given the truth about Europe by governmental sources—their enthusiasm for the new projects, including the plan for at least 10 countries to join economic and monetary union when the time comes.

Mr. Davis: I have not witnessed a reticence on the part of, for example, Jacques Santer in commenting on matters that have relevance in the UK. We have a view—a very distinctive view—on what will make a successful Europe, and that is the point of view that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has been communicating, and will continue to communicate, to the people of Europe.

Ms Quin: In view of the criticisms that Jacques Santer has recently addressed to the Government, would the Government continue to describe his appointment as a triumph of British diplomacy?

Mr. Davis: I think that the President of the Commission does a very good job, but his view of Europe is not the same as ours. That is not new: it is not surprising in a man who was the Prime Minister of Luxembourg. His federalist view is shared by several of the leaders of Europe. We must deal with and argue about that, and be determined to win the argument.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on standing firm on UK

borders and therefore getting our own way on this subject? Is there not a moral in this: if you stand firm, your will has its own way?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is, of course, exactly right. Standing firm is a necessary part of negotiation, as is standing up for the rights of this country. It is very different from what either of the Opposition parties would do. They stand for nothing, and, as I have said before, those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.

Burma

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the steps taken by the Government to promote respect for human rights in Burma. [13970]

Mr. Hanley: We have taken action bilaterally—at the UN and with our EU partners—to put pressure on the ruling State Law and Order Restoration Council to implement democratic reform and full respect for human rights in Burma.

Mr. Ainsworth: On 15 January 1997, the Minister told the House that he was urging the ambassador of Burma to open dialogue with pro-democracy forces. He also told us that he was following the European line regarding relations with Burma. Since then, clear evidence has emerged that the position has deteriorated. In the light of that and of our past relationship with that country, why are we simply following the European line and not taking a lead?

Mr. Hanley: I do not agree that we are merely following others. We are helping to develop the UN General Assembly resolution and we were at the forefront of developing the EU common position, which the hon. Gentleman feels is not effective. The EU common position that was recently adopted, which imposes a ban on entry visas for senior members of SLORC and senior military and security force officials and on high-level bilateral visits to Burma, the suspension of non-humanitarian official aid, which has been enforced for some nine years, the arms embargo in 1991 and the cutting of all remaining defence links in 1992 are pretty strong reactions. We continue to use the services of our excellent ambassador in Rangoon, Robert Gordon, to make our presence felt directly, not only to the ruling regime but in discussion with Aung San Suu Kyi.

Middle East Peace Process

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the middle east peace process. [13971]

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government regarding the implementation of the Oslo agreement; and if he will make a statement. [13972]

Mr. Hanley: I welcome the reopening, after last month's Hebron agreement, of Israeli-Palestinian


negotiations on a range of outstanding issues. We will continue to urge both sides to move swiftly to implement existing agreements, and to restart the final status negotiations.

Mr. Ross: I am sure that the whole House would like to welcome unreservedly the freeing of the 31 Palestinian female prisoners from Israeli gaols. The Minister will be aware that there are still about 2,000 male Palestinian prisoners in Israeli gaols. Does he agree that, the more that Prime Minister Netanyahu is exposed directly to the peace process, the more likely it is that the peace process will move forward?

Mr. Hanley: We welcome the release of prisoners last night. That was as stipulated in the interim agreement, proper implementation of which is crucial. Further redeployments must be substantial if Palestinian faith in the peace process is to be maintained, and we must move swiftly on the other outstanding issues. I shall keep my comments to a minimum because of time constraints.

Mr. McAvoy: Will the Minister confirm the Government's stance that the best guarantee of secure borders for Israel is co-existence with the Palestinian entity or state? Bearing that in mind, will he continue to press the Israeli Government and the Palestine Authority to continue the Oslo process as the only way to guarantee peace in the middle east?

Mr. Hanley: I thoroughly agree that continuation of the middle east peace process is the only way forward.

The United Kingdom supports self-determination for the Palestinians in United Nations resolutions. The final status of a Palestinian entity is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a matter for negotiation between the parties, but we believe strongly that it would be unwise to rule out statehood as an option.

Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the development of trade is an important ingredient in the peace process? When will the United Kingdom ratify the EU-Israel trade agreement?

Mr. Hanley: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Improved trade for Israel is vital not only for the people of Israel, but for Palestinians. I hope that in the House next week we can make progress on the EU-Israel agreement.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not considerable credit due to Prime Minister Netanyahu for the substantial progress that has been made recently with the middle east peace process? Should we not always bear in mind the fact that his Government have a responsibility to the people of Israel to be mindful of their incredible vulnerability, because of the size of the country?

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is correct: the Prime Minister of Israel is committed to the peace process. We must do everything that we can to encourage further progress, following the Hebron agreement. There was a serious delay over the Hebron agreement, but it has now been passed, and we must make progress. All parties believe in peace.

Points of Order

Mr. John Butcher: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be well aware of the convention in the House that, when new Members make their maiden speech, it is customary to hear those speeches in silence. Perhaps a similar convention could be observed for the large number of Members who wish to make their valedictory speeches before their retirement. Many of our colleagues are at that interesting age, poised on the cusp between the recent arrival of wisdom and the future onset of senile dementia, and may therefore have a number of things to get off their chest under the privilege of silence. If you could rule that such a convention be observed, I am sure that it would benefit the collective wisdom of the House.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Senile dementia."] A long time ahead yet. May I assure you, Madam Speaker, that most of us in the House who believe in speech-making and interruptions will not accept silence in our valedictory speeches. The more we are heckled and interrupted, the more the House and the Members will enjoy it.

Madam Speaker: May I respond to the original point of order. If I could distinguish between the voluntary and the involuntary valedictory speeches, I might go along with the suggestion.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the rather personal nature of Question 21, involving Mr. Perry Miller and Mr. John Kennedy and the book "Sleaze", has the Foreign Secretary made any request that his Ministers should answer the question, in order to clarify the rather difficult statements that are made in the book?

Madam Speaker: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is trying to extend Foreign Office Questions. I noticed the question that he had tabled on the matter, but I have not been informed that the Foreign Secretary has given any instructions about answering the question, unless of course it had been reached today, as I hoped that it might have been.
While I am on my feet, may I say that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is extremely good at handling questions. We tend to deal with a lot of its questions—more than any other Department. Had it been a little faster today, Mr. Dalyell's question would have been answered.

Political Fundraising

Mr. David Winnick: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision in respect of the funding of political parties at general elections and other times.
The Bill proposes to regulate the method of political funding. The present system is most unsatisfactory, and reform is urgently needed.
I should like to see four changes made. First, I want an appropriate authority, be it the Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by Lord Nolan, or a new body, to be responsible for looking into how political parties raise funds, and for political parties to submit financial reports annually to such a body.
When Lord Nolan's committee was set up, Opposition Members, both Back-Bench and Front-Bench, wanted it to look into party finances. We remain dissatisfied with how the Tory party collects its funds, and the Tory party says that it is not happy with how we collect ours. That is a strong argument in favour of Lord Nolan's committee looking into the matter.
The Prime Minister, however, was adamant and said that under no circumstances would the matter be referred to the Nolan committee. I can only conclude that the Conservative party has much to hide when it comes to how it collects its money. I do not believe that the Tory-dominated Home Affairs Select Committee is the best body to look into the issue of party financing. An outside body, certainly not made up of parliamentarians, would be far better. I hope that that reform will be carried out.
The second reform I want is that all those who donate more than a certain amount to a political party should be identified. Some say that there should be secrecy in those matters, but I cannot see the argument for that. It may be argued, for what it is worth, that those who donate small sums should not be identified, but there is every reason to identify those who donate thousands of pounds and more. If I were asked what limit I would place on identification, I would say that the source of any sum above £5,000 donated to a political party should be identified accordingly.
Tory Members have recently made a great deal of fuss about the Leader of the Opposition's funding—[Interruption.] I see that they are responding as one would expect. They say that they are unhappy about it. I understand that Sir Gordon Downey has approved the method by which the Leader of the Opposition's office has collected funds, and it is in the Register of Members' Interests. If Tory Members are not satisfied about how the Labour party is funded, that is all the more reason for approving these reforms. We should let the whole matter go before the Nolan committee or a new body.
The third change I propose is that all overseas donations to political parties should be banned, with one exception. If an individual living abroad is a full United Kingdom citizen who has the right to vote in this country and has lived here for most of his or her life, it would be wrong to take away that individual's right to donate money. In the past few years, Hong Kong billionaires have been helping to finance the Tory party, and that scandal must come to an end.
There is a further change that I want to see. For more than 100 years, the amount that could be spent on behalf of a parliamentary candidate—indeed, a local government candidate for that matter—has been limited. The sleaze that occurred more than a century ago was tackled. There is no longer any controversy over the matter. All parties in the House agree that it would be wrong to try to buy votes in one's constituency, and that there should be a limit on the amount that is spent on our behalf. That sum is updated in line with inflation. I have not heard any controversy in the House about that issue. There is an Order in Council following discussions between the political parties.
If that is right, and obviously it is, what sense is there in having a situation whereby nationally a party can spend as much as it likes? It is a contradiction to the limit on candidates in our constituencies. I believe that a change is required.
These are all modest, long-overdue reforms. There are those, however, on the Government Benches who believe in secrecy. For example, the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), who is in his place at the moment, was quoted in The Times in June 1993 as saying:
I think the Party"—
his party, of course—
is too open about its affairs as things are. I don't want more openness".
Those are the hon. Gentleman's views.
Lord McAlpine has some experience in Tory party financing. He should do, because he was its treasurer for some 15 years. He said that when he was treasurer he believed in secrecy, that it was right and proper that no information other than what the party wanted to disclose should be given. He has changed his mind—he has changed his party. He now argues that the time has come to end such secrecy. He also said—I do not know whether his tongue was in his cheek—that it would help the Conservative party if it was more open.
Many people in the Tory party—perhaps not on the Tory Benches, but reformists, such as Eric Chalker and the rest—have long argued that there should be more democracy, more openness, more detailed financial accounts in their party. I hope that, if they hear about my modest Bill, they will support it.
I mentioned Hong Kong billionaires. It is said that they have given more than £11 1 million in the past few years to the Tory party.
Then there is Asil Nadir. Of all the money that he contributed to the Tory party, nearly £500,000 was stolen money. The Home Secretary is in his place. He says at every opportunity that he believes in law and order.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): indicated assent.

Mr. Winnick: He nods his head in agreement. But one aspect of law and order is to see that his party returns stolen money. I believe that the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General have a duty, a responsibility in government, to see to it that that is so. Unless the Home Secretary does so, it is total hypocrisy on the part of Ministers.
It is said that the Tory party is not concerned with people who seek honours. Sixty-five per cent. of honours to industry under Lady Thatcher, and 68 per cent. under the present Prime Minister, went to those who contributed to Tory party funds. That may be pure coincidence. On the other hand, those who are more cynical will take the view that honours were given to those people because they contributed substantial sums to the Tory party. If Lord Nolan's committee or an appropriate body did the job that I propose in my Bill, it would investigate that, just as it would investigate any aspect of Labour party matters about which the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) would be concerned.
I accept, because I am a realist, that my Bill will not become law in a Tory-dominated House of Commons, but I hope that when a Labour Government are elected later this year, one of the first reforms that we will introduce will be on party financing. The reforms and changes that my hon. Friends and I want to see will, I am sure, be very much on the agenda of that Labour Government. I want to see change and reform to undermine the sleaze, and the furtive, underhand way in which the Conservative party collects its money.

Mr. David Shaw: There are three reasons for opposing the Bill: Labour hypocrisy, Labour hypocrisy and Labour hypocrisy. The Bill is mischievous. Before the last election, we heard cant and rubbish from Opposition Members about the Conservative party being financed from Saudi Arabia. They named a Saudi prince, but immediately the election was out of the way the truth came out. They had to withdraw the accusation, libel damages were paid to the prince and it was shown to be yet another Labour lie about Conservative party funding.
The Bill does not disclose what Labour is up to with its own financing. Nowhere in the Bill is there any information about how the Labour party accounts for its trade union moneys, which are still its primary source of finance. I have been through the Labour party accounts—I have them here—and I defy anyone to discover how much the trade unions give the Labour party in total. The accounts are misleading, and cover up the true position.
Labour is still heavily dependent on the trade unions: it is tied to them. It has changed the arrangements, and now has what it calls a constituency plan agreement, the wording of which I have managed to find out. Under such agreements, the constituency Labour party and the union undertake to recognise
the value of the organisational links, between the Labour Party and its affiliated trade unions".
Under those agreements, the constituency Labour party and the trade unions are committed
to co-operating, with the union at appropriate levels, in line with the union's rules".
Under the new arrangements, the Labour party is absolutely committed at national and local level to working with the trade unions. Trade unions still make donations to the Labour party. They still make tied donations: donations tied to performance. The Labour party still has to deliver to the trade unions.
We have confirmation that donations to the Conservative party are not tied. We have no less an authority than Mohammed Al Fayed himself, who complained that he got absolutely nothing from the


Conservative party for his £0.25 million. Those who donate to the Labour party actually get something, and there are secret joint committees of the Labour party and the trade unions.
The Labour party is in a serious mess. Its funding is still in difficulty. In its accounts and public statements, it claims to have 400,000 members, but when it came to telephoning its membership, it could reach only 200,000—the other 200,000 were missing. The problem was that the unions have not purchased enough membership cards.
The Labour party goes in for secret funds. The amount of its funds which is interesting is not what is published in the accounts: it is what is in the secret or blind funds. I have identified at least six blind funds, and possibly a seventh. There is the Leader of the Opposition's personal blind fund; the deputy leader of the Labour party's personal blind fund; the shadow Chancellor's personal blind fund; the industrial research trust; the Westminster objectors trust; the Front Bench research fund; and the seventh fund that I have identified, apparently involving the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), is the Labour party's Soho fund. I shall not say anything more about the hon. Gentleman and his connections with Soho.
Let us look at the Labour leader's blind fund. In a statement to the 1996 Labour party conference, the right hon. Gentleman said:
we will legislate to make the Tories tell us where their money comes from.
He did not say that he would legislate to make himself declare where his own money came from. Where does his money come from? Is it a blind fund set up by lawyers to evade the rules of Parliament? The answer is that it has certainly been set up to evade the rules of Parliament, but what it has not succeeded in doing is being blind, because the newspapers have already told us who donates. Indeed, the leader of the Labour party plays tennis with those who donate. "Anyone for tennis?" takes on a new meaning—"Anyone to donate to the Labour leader's fund?"
The Labour leader meets those who donate over lunch at Mr. Levy's house in north London. He knows who is donating to his Labour leader's private fund; there is no secrecy there. That is what Sir Gordon Downey was not told. Those who read Lord Rees's letter to The Daily Telegraph, and Lord Richard's statement in column 1712 of the House of Lords Official Report, will find that no mention was made of what happened at Mr. Levy's house, or of the Labour leader's meeting with the donors, in the information that was given to Sir Gordon Downey. It would seem that Sir Gordon was seriously misled by the Labour leader's office—and, by implication, by the Labour leader himself—in that those concerned were not open and honest in the information they gave him.
The fact is that the Prime Minister does not have a similar secret fund. He does not need to have blind funds of a personal nature. The Bill is hypocritical in the extreme. I understand from The Times that the Labour leader's blind fund has been used to pay personal expenses. According to that newspaper—and it has not been denied—it is not used just to pay the Opposition Leader's office expenses.
Some Opposition Members may ask what is wrong with blind funds. Quite simply, they do not work. The donors rarely remain silent; sooner or later, they seek recognition for their donations—and, as we know, in the Labour party recognition means favours, and getting something back.
The fact is that the Labour leader's blind fund is not just an onshore fund, as has been suggested. Mr. Levy's business connections extend to Switzerland and Guernsey, areas that are not known for ensuring that British income tax is paid at the level at which it might be. That is unattractive, and the Labour leader should clean up his act. We do not need ten-minute Bills; we need honesty and openness from the Labour leader and his office.
The fund has been shrouded in secrecy. That secrecy has partly failed, and is causing serious problems. It is disgraceful that it appears that Sir Gordon Downey may have been misled into giving some indication of approval, when he had not been given all the information about how the fund operated and who the Labour leader met at the tennis and lunch sessions at Mr. Levy's home.
This is very unsatisfactory. The newspapers have made clear how unsatisfactory it is. The fact is that a number of donors have already admitted that they donate to the fund; the fact is that there are overseas connections; the fact is that there have been soundbite cover-ups and a lack of openness from the Labour party. The existence of the fund was first disclosed at the end of November and the beginning of December, yet there has been no honesty or openness from Labour. Come out with the names of all the donors. Admit it. Let the Labour leader live up to the speech that he delivered to the party conference in front of all those journalists, the British public and the Labour party. Stop the secrecy in the Labour party. It is a disgrace, and Labour should be ashamed of it. I oppose the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. John Spellar, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Robert Hughes, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Michael Clapham, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and Mrs. Anne Campbell.

Mr. Winnick: Virtually everyone wanted to be on the list of supporters, Madam Speaker, but I had to make priorities. I hope that my other hon. Friends will excuse me.

POLITICAL FUNDRAISING

Mr. Winnick accordingly presented a Bill to make provision in respect of the funding of political parties at general elections and other times: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 1 May, and to be printed [Bill 105].

Police Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill, in common with all the other measures that I have introduced in the past four years, has one simple but important purpose: to protect the public. It will help the police, together with other law enforcement agencies, to target serious and organised crime even more effectively. It will improve access to criminal records to protect the most vulnerable people in our society, particularly by subjecting anyone who wishes to work with children or who seeks other positions of trust, to a thorough check of criminal record information. The Bill will be of real practical benefit to the police, to other law enforcement agencies and to law-abiding citizens.
Organised crime is nothing new, but it is more sophisticated than ever before. Organised criminals are quick to exploit the opportunities provided by the ease of modern travel and modern communications. They operate across police force boundaries and national boundaries. They use the latest technology. They create large and complex businesses, part legal and part illegal, to launder the proceeds of their crimes. The Government are determined to ensure that the law enforcement agencies have the tools that they need to fight such crime effectively. They must be able to conduct effective surveillance, to obtain reliable intelligence and to target major crime in a co-ordinated way. The Bill will help them to achieve that.
Parts I and II provide for the creation of two national services: the NCIS Service Authority and the National Crime Squad. The arrangements for both services will be firmly rooted in our structure of local policing, with its tripartite system of sharing accountability between local representatives, chief officers of police and central Government. We are not proposing the creation of a national police service or the British equivalent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. There will be no "federal crimes" over which the new organisations will have exclusive jurisdiction. The public will continue to report all crimes to their local police forces. Police officers in both bodies will continue to be seconded or recruited from local police forces, and there will be strong local representation on the two new service authorities responsible for maintaining the two services. That approach strikes the right balance between putting in place effective national arrangements to meet the challenge of organised crime and preserving the local policing system that we all value so highly.

Mr. Tony Benn: Clause 2(2)(a) refers to the right of the NCIS
to gather, store and analyse information.
Would that include information gathered as a by-product of bugging for other purposes? Suppose the police had authority to bug someone and then discovered that the

solicitor involved was gay, had HIV or was engaged in some particular activity that was not criminal, would that go on the police computer?

Mr. Howard: I cannot imagine that any information of the sort that the right hon. Gentleman identifies would be relevant to the investigation, prevention or detection of serious crime. On that basis, it would not be relevant to the activities of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. NCIS is interested in providing intelligence that is relevant to combating serious crime, and that is the basis on which it will proceed.
The Bill puts NCIS on an independent statutory footing. NCIS will continue to provide criminal intelligence to police forces across the United Kingdom and to other law enforcement agencies—principally Customs and Excise and the National Crime Squad—in this country and abroad. Last year, intelligence from NCIS contributed to the arrest of 1,378 major criminals, seizures of drugs worth £294 million and recovery of property worth £18 million. Its new status under the direction and control of a director general with chief constable rank will mean that it is even better placed to collect and develop intelligence for the benefit of all its users.
The National Crime Squad will bring together the existing regional crime squads into a single unit, again under the direction and control of a director-general with chief constable rank. Under current voluntary arrangements, the national co-ordinator of the regional crime squads has no powers of direction or control. The new squad will make it very much easier to deploy resources more flexibly and to tackle major criminals operating in one or more police force areas in England and Wales. The squad will continue to be able to support forces at the request of chief officers and will maintain close links with the Scottish crime squad and Royal Ulster Constabulary.
The Bill proposes that the two new national services should each be maintained by a new service authority. Those service authorities will be closely modelled on police authorities, but with some changes to reflect the national focus of the two services. The authorities will comprise independent members, one of whom will be appointed by the Secretary of State to chair both authorities, as well as police authority and police service representatives. The service authority for the National Crime Squad would have 17 members—comprising independent, police authority and police service members, plus one representative of the Secretary of State. The membership of the NCIS authority would be similar, but because of its United Kingdom-wide and multi-agency remit it would have a total membership of 19, which would also include representatives of police authorities and police forces in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland, and a representative of Customs and Excise.
Although they are separate, it is important that the two services should work closely together to achieve shared national objectives. For that reason, the Bill proposes that 10 members should serve on both authorities. The 10 joint members would include the three independent members to be appointed by the Secretary of State, one of whom would be the chairman of both authorities.
A strong local element has been preserved in those arrangements. Crown servants representing the Secretaries of State will have no voting powers. Representatives of


police authorities—including those for the Metropolitan police district, Scotland and Northern Ireland—will always make up a clear majority of those eligible to vote on the levy and the appointment of a director general. Conversely, it is right that there should be a strong national role, reflecting the interests of all parties, in those national services. We believe that we have struck the right balance, consistent with our current system of policing.
The majority of the income for the two services will be derived from levies on police authorities in England and Wales. In the case of NCIS, direct contributions will be made by other users. We believe that decisions on the levy should be strongly influenced by locally elected members of the service authorities. That is why we propose that only the police authority members from England and Wales—who will always be in a majority—and the independent members of the service authorities will vote on the proposed levy. Their proposals will be considered by the Secretary of State, who will first consult a tripartite group comprising representatives of police authorities, the police service and central Government. That group will consider the levies in the context of overall spending on the police. In the light of that consultation, the Secretary of State will either approve the levy or instruct the service authority to adjust it. His decision will be final.
In most other ways, the respective roles of the Secretary of State and service authorities reflect current arrangements for local police forces. For example, the role of the Home Secretary—in consultation with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland in relation to the National Criminal Intelligence Service—will be to set key objectives for each service, to call for reports and to require Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary to conduct inspections.
The service authorities will set detailed objectives and publish service plans and annual reports on performance. They will appoint the director general and other senior police officers. Other officers will be seconded or loaned from their local force or organisations such as Customs and Excise. All staff will be under the direction and control of the relevant director general. The terms and conditions of service of staff will be decided by the service authority after consultation, in the case of police officers, with the police negotiating board. There will be full consultation with the police staff associations and trade unions on terms and conditions and the complaints and discipline system.
I turn now to part III of the Bill. I do not think that there is any dispute about the need of the police and customs to use intrusive surveillance against our most serious criminals. That effective and valuable technique must be available to our law enforcement agencies if they are to get the evidence that they need to bring our most dangerous criminals to court. We are not talking about petty crime, still less people going about their lawful activities. The Bill is aimed at major drug traffickers, kidnappers, terrorists and those involved in serious fraud and money laundering. These are the most dangerous criminals whose activities have a major impact on society—people who are well versed in policing methods and have the resources that they need to protect themselves from detection.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this is a serious

constitutional matter? Does he not therefore think that the Committee stage of the Bill should be held on the Floor of the House, so that parties from all over the United Kingdom will not be isolated—some of them not even represented on the Committee? The Bill affects my part of the country. I feel that the Committee stage of such a grave constitutional Bill should be held on the Floor of the House. Will the Home Secretary help us on that? I do not want to hinder him getting his Bill passed, but I must defend the rights of the people and their representatives to be heard, especially in Committee.

Mr. Howard: I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I shall remind the House in a moment, the techniques in question have been used for a long time. The Bill introduces new safeguards, as well as putting the use of the techniques on a statutory basis for the first time. I do not follow the hon. Gentleman in his point, but of course he, his hon. Friends and others will have the fullest opportunity to put their points on Report.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, particularly in our constitution, there can never be an absolute guide on what is a constitutional question? When there is uncertainty, it is necessary to examine the political background. The Labour party has abandoned the proper adversarial role of the Opposition. As a result, there has not been adequate discussion about prior authorisation. That point therefore ought to be discussed on the Floor of the House, not in private Upstairs in Committee.

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that there is no absolute definition of a constitutional issue. However, I fear that I cannot follow him on the rest of his remarks. The Labour party, to be as fair to it as I can, has attempted to form a view on the right course to take on the Bill. I regret that it has not been constant in the view that it formed, but there it is. We have to do the best that we can with that.

Mr. Benn: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Howard: I am answering my hon. Friend. I will give way in a moment. The right hon. Gentleman must contain himself. The provisions in the Bill have been extensively considered in another place and will no doubt be extensively considered in this House, including on Report.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Howard: I think that I indicated to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that I would give way to him next.

Mr. Benn: The Home Secretary refers to terrorism, kidnapping, drug smuggling, and so on, and one understands that point, but one of the grounds for intrusive surveillance is given as
conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose.
No crime is mentioned. That would apply to road protesters, trade unions and political parties. A Labour Home Secretary who regarded the Conservative party as


having a common purpose—as occasionally it does—would be entitled to bug any Conservative party office. That is the point that has aroused a great deal of concern, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not even touched on it.

Mr. Howard: I have not got very far into my speech, but I will answer the right hon. Gentleman's point now. There are crimes which might warrant the use of the powers that would not come under the second limb of the definition of serious crime in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has clearly looked at the matters closely, so he will be aware that the second limb refers to the likelihood of a first offender, 21 years old or over, getting a sentence of three years imprisonment. I hope that I may be able to carry the right hon. Gentleman with me on the point that there are criminal activities that would not fulfil that criterion but might merit the use of the powers by the police.

Mr. Benn: indicated dissent.

Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Let me see if I can give an example which might cause him to reconsider. It is perfectly possible to conceive of a situation in which a large number of neo-Nazi youths concerted to disrupt a major football match. I suggest that that might very well merit the use of such investigative techniques. Nevertheless, if they were over 21 years old and of previous good character, none of the individuals involved might be sentenced for more than three years imprisonment for such an activity. That is what that limb of the definition is designed to cover.
I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to an additional safeguard. The statutory code of practice that we intend to provide in the Bill will enjoin chief officers of police to make a judgment about the proportionality of the use of the powers against the mischief at which they are targeted and which they are designed to prevent. Those safeguards should be sufficient to allay the anxieties to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Howard: I think that I owe my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) the next intervention.

Mr. Forman: When trying to assess such matters, I always try to look at such empirical evidence as may be available rather than at what might happen. The Library briefing on the matter states that the Government undertook an exercise, looking at the example of 1995, and found there were approximately 2,100 chief officer authorisations by police and Customs and Excise of intrusive surveillance operations in the United Kingdom. Can my right hon. and learned Friend give the House some idea of the rough breakdown between police and Customs and Excise on the one hand and between one kind of authorisation and another? It would help to inform today's debate.

Mr. Howard: I am afraid that I cannot do so at the moment. I shall cause inquiries to be made about whether

I can answer the first part of my hon. Friend's question about the breakdown between police and Customs and Excise. I know that we cannot give a breakdown on the second part of his question. I can say, however, that the majority of operations that were authorised under the use of the powers do not involve the sensitive categories about which there has been a great deal of debate, particularly in the other place. The majority of the operations consist, for example, of placing a beacon under a motor car so that the motor car's movements can be traced. The vast majority of operations do not involve intrusion into private premises, lawyers' offices, medical surgeries or anything of that kind.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Howard: I want to make some progress, but I will give way to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).

Mr. A. J. Beith: The Home Secretary goes on about safeguards, but in his statement yesterday, which he made with the approval of his Labour shadow—it was almost a joint statement—he said that prior approval would not be necessary even in sensitive cases. That drives a coach and horses through the safeguards. If the security services wish to undertake intrusive surveillance, the Home Secretary is not bypassed. The procedure has to be followed and the Home Secretary gives his approval even if he has to be disturbed in the middle of the night.

Mr. Howard: Those are different cases. One of the greatest weaknesses in the Liberal Democrats' position, and in their amendment that was carried in another place, is that it makes no provision for urgent cases. Even the latest communication from the chairman of the Bar Council, who has shared many of the right hon. Gentleman's concerns about the Bill, recognises the importance of making provision for urgent cases. I do not accept that such provision drives a coach and horses through the Bill—it is an essential safeguard.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Traditionally, the House has always regarded as constitutional those matters which affect the relationship of the citizen to the state or its agencies. The Bill undoubtedly touches on that issue. I cite the precedent of the Official Secrets Act 1989: there was no question about that being taken on the Floor of the House. The Bill would attack the rights of citizens over their domestic premises and their privacy, which is a major constitutional issue.

Mr. Howard: There are many precedents which point the other way, as I am sure that my hon. Friend would be the first to agree.

Mr. Shepherd: Cite them.

Mr. Howard: So that the list is as comprehensive as possible, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will cite the precedents when he winds up.
Much has been said about the Bill in another place and in the media. Much of it has been misleading and misinformed. We are not proposing a great constitutional change. Intrusive surveillance has been authorised by


chief officers for many years on the basis of Home Office guidelines first issued in 1977, when we had a Labour Government, and updated in 1984. The courts have accepted the evidence obtained from the use of those techniques as part of the prosecution case. The use of the techniques appears to have been authorised by chief constables with responsibility and restraint.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: rose

Mr. Howard: I must make some progress. I have given way generously, as the hon. Lady must accept.
Intrusive surveillance is used only in cases involving serious crimes and when there are no alternative methods available. In our view, the arrangements for authorising the use of intrusive surveillance must satisfy two basic principles. First, authorisations must be made by those with the training and operational experience to judge whether the surveillance is necessary. The person taking the decision must understand all the circumstances, including the investigative methods that have been used and the potential risk to public safety or even human life if surveillance is not attempted. Those matters go to the heart of policing. They should be decided by chief officers, subject to independent review that does not entail second-guessing of their operational judgments.
The second important principle is that those who authorise intrusive surveillance must be accountable for their decisions. Chief officers are accountable and they have in the past been required to justify their decisions in court. These are the principles which have guided my approach to the contradictory amendments tabled in another place.

Mrs. Clwyd: In the past half hour, the Home Secretary has given an omnibus answer to several questions on the use of mobile phones. He has been asked for the number of occasions on which access to the UK Cellnet system has been sought by each police authority. Most people in Britain have no idea that mobile phones are being used for this purpose. I found his answer—that the information was not held centrally—completely unsatisfactory, as most other people will. Should this matter not come within the scope of the Bill? The Home Secretary must surely address that point.

Mr. Howard: That matter involves other statutory provisions, as the hon. Lady will appreciate, but it is a matter of satisfaction to me that there is no central record of the number of occasions on which these powers have been used. The powers do not come within the control of any central authority in this country, but are exercised by local police officers who are accountable to local police authorities. I would not wish there to be any step that would attract these powers into a central repository. The hon. Lady should take some satisfaction from the fact that those records are not kept centrally.
I have described the principles that have guided my approach to the matter and the contradictory amendments tabled in another place. The amendment requiring all intrusive surveillance to have the prior authorisation of a circuit judge is unacceptable. As I have explained, I do not accept that judges can properly be expected to take these decisions. Furthermore, the absence of provisions for urgent cases—the very point on which the right

hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed intervened a few moments ago—would seriously inhibit the fight against serious crime. In hostage situations it could even endanger life, and I am not prepared to take that risk. It could also reduce accountability, because judges could not be called to account in the same way as chief officers. The amendment on that subject was moved by the Liberal Democrats in another place.
The amendment tabled by the Labour party in another place does not present quite the same difficulties. That is not altogether surprising, given the tortuous evolution of the Labour party's approach to this issue. When I originally announced my proposals and published the Bill, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) strongly supported them. He saw the need for them, and rebutted the criticisms which were made of them with vigour. Under a sustained onslaught from The Guardian and others, however, he subsequently retreated. That is perhaps an object lesson in what life would be like under a Labour Government—strong words, vigorous argument, but retreat at the first puff of pressure.
Faced with that reaction—and with the schizophrenic amendments passed in another place—I have considered what would be the best way forward. We had already amended the Bill in another place to provide for all authorisations to be notified to the commissioner as soon as reasonably practicable, and for there to be more than one commissioner to ensure that authorisations could be reviewed quickly. In most cases, that would have meant that a commissioner would be able to scrutinise the authorisation before the operation commenced and put a stop to the intrusive surveillance if he thought it outside the criteria of the Bill.
We intend to bring forward amendments in Committee which will modify clause 91—which was inserted in the other place—to build on the approach embodied in the Government amendments. Our changes will require that the approval of the commissioner is obtained before an operation begins where there are reasonable grounds for thinking that the operation could affect legal, medical or journalistic privilege, or where the operation involves intrusion into residential dwellings, offices or hotel bedrooms.
Prior approval will not be necessary where the police or customs are acting with the consent of the person who is able to give permission in respect of the relevant premises. Nor will prior approval be necessary in urgent cases, but the commissioner would have to be notified as soon as reasonably practicable after the authorisation had been given.
Where prior approval is required, the commissioner will give it if, to borrow words from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984,
he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that the authorisation fulfils the requirements in clause 92. Those requirements are that the action is likely to be of substantial value in the prevention or detection of serious crime and that what the action seeks to achieve cannot reasonably be achieved by other means.
The commissioner will not seek to put himself in the shoes of the chief constable. That is an important difference between our approach and the test favoured by the Labour party in another place, which would have involved second-guessing by the commissioner of the chief constable's decision.
Under our proposals, there will be no second-guessing of operational judgments. It will be for the chief officers to authorise and for the commissioners to scrutinise that authorisation to determine that there were reasonable grounds for the proposed action. I believe that our approach strikes the crucial balance of ensuring that operational decisions are left to those best qualified to take them, but that there is strong and independent scrutiny and oversight.
The measures ensure not only that there will be an effective oversight system that fully recognises the sensitivity of the operations, but that police and customs officers will continue to be able to deploy the most sophisticated methods necessary to achieve effective results.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: If surveillance is carried out under the urgency provisions and it is then reported to the commissioner, who takes the view that it was unreasonable and should not have taken place, will the evidence obtained be inadmissible in a court of law?

Mr. Howard: That will be a matter for the courts to decide. The commissioner will have the power to stop the operations there and then, to quash the authorisation and even to order compensation. Those are considerable safeguards. I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not prepared to entrust the decision on admissibility to the discretion of the court.

Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. and learned Friend knows that I approach the problem from a wholly different perspective, because I agree with him that there should be a regulatory framework but that the police definitely need the powers. Will he assure us that, under the provisions that he intends to introduce by amendment in Committee, what will matter is what the chief constable knew when he took the decision to authorise intrusive surveillance as an emergency, without the agreement of the commissioner, not second-guessing on information that may subsequently have been discovered suggesting that he ought not to have given the approval? Surely it is what he knew at the time of the decision to give approval that matters.

Mr. Howard: That is certainly the starting point, but I cannot give my hon. Friend the categorical assurance that he seeks. For example, the Bill rightly contains provisions that enable someone to complain about the authorisation, and part of the complaint may be that the chief constable could and should have made other inquiries at the time of the authorisation that would or should have led him not to make it. That would be a relevant matter to be taken into account. However, the information available to the chief constable at the time that he makes the authorisation will be the starting point for the scrutiny that the commissioner will exercise.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Inevitably, such operations result in the gathering of a lot of material that is subsequently found to be irrelevant and which may affect other people who are not involved in the criminal

investigation. What will happen to that material? What assurance can the Home Secretary give that it will be destroyed, and how will it be stored in the meantime?

Mr. Howard: The commissioner has the power to call for all the information and material, and has specific power to instruct that that material should be destroyed. If it is not withdrawn into the hands of the commissioner, it will be a matter for the police, who will decide whether to retain the material on the basis of whether they think that it will be useful to them in pursuit of the inquiries on which they are engaged. That is a perfectly reasonable and sensible way to deal with the matter.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: Will the Home Secretary expand on that point? As I read the Bill, the only reference in clause 97 to the destruction of records is when the commissioner has decided that the person who gave an authorisation was not acting properly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) pointed out, there may well be cases in which the authorisation was proper and a great deal of information has been collected about people who are not the subject of the authorisation. That situation does not appear to be covered by the clause.

Mr. Howard: I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making.

Mr. Gerrard: rose

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that if, in pursuance of a properly authorised operation, the chief constable came across other information relevant to the investigation of a serious crime, he should destroy it, I utterly refute that suggestion. These are matters that can be left to the discretion of the chief constable, as they normally are.

Mr. Gerrard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Home Secretary is clearly refusing to give way to me, having distorted what I said. I made it clear that I was talking about information relevant to people who were not concerned with the investigation under way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is up to the Secretary of State whether he wants to give way.

Mr. Howard: That was not a point of order and it was a point that I comprehensively answered. I will repeat my reply for the benefit of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). If in the course of investigating a serious crime, the police come upon other information relevant to another serious crime, I—and most citizens of this country—would expect them to use it in the course of that other investigation.

Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. and learned Friend concede that it is obvious that the House is deeply concerned about the details of prior authorisation? This is the first time the House has been able to express its views on the details. Since the measure must carry the confidence of the whole country, on reflection would it


not be better to have a debate on the Floor of the House rather than to have the suspicion that it is being bashed through in a rather authoritarian way?

Mr. Howard: I do not make the concession for which my hon. Friend asks, and I ask him to reflect on the fact that if, on every Second Reading of a Bill at which concerns were expressed about the details, the matter were remitted to a Committee of the whole House, our proceedings would be considerably more cumbersome and protracted than they are.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I hope that I can ask this question in the well phrased and courteous way that is characteristic of the Home Secretary. It appears that the House is being asked to approve new methods of police surveillance hitherto not found acceptable and that he is asking us to pass a Bill that will make those methods acceptable in respect of a known crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) inquired what would happen with information obtained during one investigation, which was interesting but had no relevance to it.
How would that information then be used? Would it be in police records? Would it be used as a Member of Parliament democratically investigating one matter and finding information relevant to something else would use such information? Surely that is the nub of the question which concerns the House. In that respect, authorisation is vital. Otherwise the information would not be available.

Mr. Howard: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. There is no basis for the suggestion that the use of such powers has been found unacceptable over the years—they have led to remarkably few complaints and criticisms. I accept that it is desirable that those powers should be put on a statutory basis with additional safeguards, and that is what we have done. [Interruption.] Opposition Members suggest from sedentary positions that nobody knew about that, but the guidance published by the Home Office in 1984 was public. I am not sure that the guidance published by the Labour Government in 1977 was public: the Opposition claim to believe in open Government, but I understand that the 1977 guidance was headed "confidential". The guidance published in 1984, however, was a public document available to all. Therefore, there has been no secret or mystery about the availability of the powers.

Mr. David Trimble: I have been bugged on at least two occasions, but I am unsure what variety of organisation was bugging me. I have two points. First, there has been a misunderstanding about the intervention of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). I thought that he was asking what would happen with information that was incidentally gathered and which was not relevant to any other investigation. Would it be destroyed? Secondly, I wish to reinforce the points already made about the desirability of having a good debate on this issue in the House.

Mr. Howard: I am sure that we shall have a good debate on the Floor today, on Report and on Third Reading. On the destruction of material that is not relevant to any line of investigation, on the face of it I see no reason why that should be treated differently from any

other material that comes into the possession of the police when they are engaged in an investigation. However, it is clearly a matter on which different views may be held and which can be considered in detail at the appropriate stage, both in Committee and on Report.
I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed about the possibility that the police might conduct surveillance of confessionals. The police have told me that this has never been necessary in the past and are happy to give an undertaking not to mount surveillance operations in circumstances covered by the seal of confession. We will finalise the details shortly, and will insert a specific reference to that undertaking in the code of practice.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: rose

Mr. Beith: rose—

Mr. Richard Shepherd: rose—

Mr. Howard: I give way to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)

Mr. Mackinlay: The seal of confession does not relate exclusively to Roman Catholics; it is held in high regard by the Anglican communion and by many other faiths, which have comparable counselling by religious ministers to their flocks. Will the Home Secretary undertake that such pastoral conversations, which have hitherto been held by democratic states to be of the utmost confidentiality, will be excluded from the surveillance provisions? Will there be privilege both for the sacrament of confession and for the traditional conversations between pastors and their flocks? Will that be in the code of practice?

Mr. Howard: I can certainly give an undertaking carefully to consider the hon. Gentleman's point and see to what extent we can take it on board in the code of practice. I suspect that there may be problems of definition which could give rise to some difficulty.

Mr. Shepherd: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that Home Office guidelines, of which some of us were unaware, deposited in front of the House, can make lawful that which is unlawful or override common or statute law? That is the nub of the question. He is having to make it lawful because Home Office guidelines were not good enough cover. As upholder of our law and order, he must have regard to that which is lawful. Therefore, his response on guidelines is not good enough. The Home Office is trying to convert that which is currently unlawful under statute and common law into that which is lawful.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that Home Office guidance cannot do any of the things that he said it could not do—I entirely agree with him about that. The point that I was making in answer to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was in response to his assertion that the exercise of these powers over the years has been found to be unacceptable. That is a much more contentious assertion. The truth of the matter is that these powers have been exercised over many decades without giving rise to any widespread concern. I accept that it is


preferable that they should be put on a proper statutory basis, with proper safeguards and that is why they are included in the Bill.
The provisions in part IV of the Bill to place the police information technology organisation on an independent tripartite footing have been well received on all sides—perhaps I ought to add, so far. We need to gain the maximum benefit from information technology and these new arrangements will help PITO to achieve its objective of providing the information technology and communications that best meet the needs of the police service
If we are to secure the maximum benefits from IT for the police service, we must make sure that we have the right structures in place to achieve that goal. PITO was set up on a non-statutory basis in April 1996. Much has already been done to create a more customer-focused organisation, but one important further step needs to be taken. By establishing PITO as an executive non-departmental public body, it will be possible to bring the chief officers and police authority associations into the heart of decision making.
Part V of the Bill contains provisions which bring into effect the proposals for access to criminal records for employment and related purposes that were set out in the White Paper "On the Record" which was published in June last year. Those proposals will put in place a coherent, transparent and fair system of access to criminal records for employment and related purposes. It will offer better protection to vulnerable groups and reassure employers that the information they are given about an applicant's criminal record is complete and accurate.

Mr. Benn: Will the Home Secretary give way? I wrote to him on this very point last year.

Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman has not given me much time to get into my speech, but I will give way.

Mr. Benn: I wanted to give the Home Secretary the chance to answer this question in the body of his speech. First, if I applied for a job, could I require my employer to give me details of any criminal conviction so that I knew I would not be working for a drug dealer or a corrupt employer? Or is it only employers who can get such information about possible employees? Secondly, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman reassure me that all the information gathered by bugging and surveillance will be handed over to the European Union as part of the security arrangements reached with the European Union about the exchange of police information? This measure is not only about the relationship between the citizen and the British Government, but about the relationship between the citizen and the European security arrangements that the Home Secretary is setting up.

Mr. Howard: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I can give him an assurance that if the employer's work brings him into contact with vulnerable people in the way that is covered by the provisions of the Bill the employer himself will be covered by the provisions of the Bill in exactly the same way as anybody else whose employment brings them into contact with vulnerable persons will be covered.
On the second point—and this is a most important point—I can certainly give an assurance that, so long as there is a Conservative Government, the consequences that the right hon. Gentleman fears from the extension of this information to authorities of the European Union will not take place. However, I can give him no assurance that that will not happen if we were to have a Labour Government, since the shadow Foreign Secretary said only last week that he would accept the extension of majority voting into matters now covered by the third pillar arrangements of the European Union. That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question. If he is concerned about these matters, he should address those concerns to his own Front Benchers and not to the Government.

Mr. Jack Straw: Perhaps I may repeat for the benefit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) a similar undertaking: in no sense will we allow such information to be passed to the European Union. As the Home Secretary well knows, we are committed to ensuring that all matters which come within the third pillar remain intergovernmental and therefore not subject to majority voting.

Mr. Howard: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not seen the latest press release issued by his right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary. We shall have to help the hon. Gentleman by making that information available to him. I am afraid that the shadow Foreign Secretary has acknowledged beyond peradventure that, if this country is headed by a Labour Government at the intergovernmental conference due to take place at the end of June, concessions will be made that will do away with our veto, not only in areas that have specifically been identified, but in relation to justice and home affairs. It is absolutely clear, and the country should be aware, that that would be the consequence of a Labour Government if we were ever to have one.
We intend to set up a criminal records agency, accountable to the Home Office, to undertake the work for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, the work will be undertaken by the Scottish criminal record office. Those bodies will be able to issue three types of certificate.
The first type of certificate will be a criminal conviction certificate. These will be issued to individuals only and will give details of their convictions recorded in central police records that are not spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. It will be for applicants and employers to decide when it is reasonable to require such a certificate to be produced.
The second type of certificate will be a criminal record certificate. These will contain details of spent and unspent convictions and cautions and will be available only for those occupations, such as doctors, nurses, teachers and prison officers, which are exceptions to the 1974 Act. A joint application will be made by the individual and the organisation seeking the check. The individual and the employer will be sent a copy of the certificate.
The third type of certificate will be an enhanced criminal record certificate. Initially, these certificates will be available only for those working on a regular, unsupervised basis with children; for certain licensing purposes; and for judges and magistrates prior to


appointment. As well as information on convictions and cautions, enhanced certificates will include non-conviction information from local police records, where that might be relevant to the post being sought. A copy of the certificate will be sent to the individual and the employer. In very exceptional circumstances, where on-going or future police investigations might be prejudiced, the information from the local police check will be provided only to the employer.
The Bill also makes provision for regulations to be made that will enable enhanced checks to be extended to those who work with vulnerable adults.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Would a long-term unemployed person be expected to pay as much as a tenner for the criminal conviction certificate, and how frequently would he be expected to provide an updated certificate?

Mr. Howard: I shall come to that point in a moment.
We intend the new system to be self-financing and for the costs to be met by individuals when they apply for a certificate. The fees charged will be modest, and are likely to be in the region of £5 or £6 for a criminal or criminal record certificate and £8 to £10 for an enhanced criminal record certificate.
When the Bill was considered in another place, it was amended to exempt volunteers from paying fees for criminal record checks. We opposed that move. The Government fully recognise and appreciate the good work that is done by the millions of volunteers in this country, and we have done much to encourage those who help their communities in that way, but the financial implications of the amendments are potentially enormous—costing possibly as much as £200 million.
We do not believe that it would be fair to redistribute those costs among other users of the agency. Some of them, as the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said, will be unemployed or otherwise on low incomes, and possibly less able to pay a fee than many volunteers. The only other option would be for the taxpayer to pick up the bill, but no public funds are currently available to meet the costs of providing free checks for volunteers.
We propose, therefore, to amend the Bill to remove the amendments made in another place, but to introduce an order making power to enable free checks to be provided for specific groups, such as volunteers, if and when the money became available to cover the costs of doing so.

Mr. Mackinlay: rose

Rev. Martin Smyth: rose

Mr. Howard: I give way to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).

Mr. Mackinlay: This afternoon I spoke to the chief executive of the Scout Association, who says that it will cost the association about £500,000 a year to fund this vetting and that, more importantly, it will be a disincentive to volunteering. The association wants total vetting to protect young people, but the association and many Labour Members feel that it would be grossly

unreasonable that such a fee should be picked up by a voluntary organisation which does tremendous work for the community. It is absurd and ridiculous.

Mr. Howard: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, his question is absurd and ridiculous. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot at one and the same time point to the cost to the organisation and also suggest that the cost would be a deterrent to the individual volunteer: it must be one or the other.
It is unnecessary for the organisations to pay for the checks. The vast majority of volunteers will not be deterred from their voluntary activity by a one-off payment of £5 or £6. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of volunteers voluntarily incur expenses in the course of their volunteering which far exceed the cost of a check of £5 or £6. I do not believe that the provision will have the consequences to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I ask the Secretary of State to think again, especially about introducing an order. It is possible that some volunteers will not be deterred, but most volunteers are unemployed people. There are those who volunteer at a different level and could afford the expense, but many could not. Charities, especially, have already suffered as a result of the advent of the national lottery. I recognise that there might be cross-party support to keep the taxpayer clear, but it should not be a case of reversing the role of Robin Hood and taking from the poor to pay for the rich.

Mr. Howard: I am sorry to have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. First, I am not sure that his observation about the effect of the lottery on charities is well founded. Secondly, I do not accept that a modest one-off payment will be a significant deterrent to volunteers.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, while a person who gives his time for nothing to work in a charity may find it acceptable, for example, to use his own transport to get to the place where he does the voluntary work, it is another thing entirely to ask that person to put his hand in his pocket and pay £5 or £6 to run a criminal record check on himself when he knows perfectly well that no criminal convictions are recorded against him? Such a person may see that as an insult, and certainly as a deterrent to volunteering his services.

Mr. Howard: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The distinctive characteristic of volunteers is that they are generous and public-spirited. They will understand the importance of the checks and they will not be at all insulted at the notion of having a check. They will readily accept the importance of providing more protection for children, which the provisions will allow, and they will be ready to make the modest payment involved.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. Volunteers will be only too happy to know that other volunteers are clean. In the light of some of the dreadful cases that have occurred recently, volunteers will be happy to pay for peace of mind.

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's point.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of the tremendous work done


by voluntary bodies in the north of Ireland. He should consider that every voluntary body conducts a massive lobby of the Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland. The largest lobby that I have ever had was on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal, and I have been in the House for 27 years, as have my colleagues. People who are helping daily as volunteers to meet the needs of the community in Northern Ireland know the difficulties of telling an unemployed person that he would be excellent to do a job but that he will have to pay for a certificate to clear his name when in fact his name is clear. Could not the Home Secretary devise a system whereby a volunteer could take an oath in public declaring that his name is clear?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: That would cost a great deal more.

Rev. Ian Paisley: No. The notaries and members of the public would be working for the voluntary sector for nothing. There would then be no onus of payment on a volunteer working in the voluntary sector.

Mr. Howard: I fear that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), in her intervention from a sedentary position, may well be right. The attestation of such an oath before an official may well be more expensive than the very modest cost of the check that we envisage.
The voluntary sector has long been pressing for better access to criminal record information, and it welcomed our proposals when we first put them forward. But wider access costs money, and so cannot be provided unless the cost will be met. Our proposed approach will enable a balance to be struck between wider access funded by those who use the service and the provision of free checks to specific groups if financial resources permit.
The Bill contains a number of important safeguards to ensure that sensitive information is not misused. Employers who register with the agency will be required to abide by a code of practice. Good practice guidance on the application of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and the need to consider the relevance of any convictions will be issued to registered bodies, and the Bill will also make it a criminal offence for a member, officer or employee of a registered body to disclose information about criminal records other than in the course of his duties.

Mr. Gerrard: Does the Minister agree that the code of practice would apply not to the criminal conviction certificate but to the full and enhanced certificates that would be relevant to registered bodies? Would that not leave all sorts of anomalies, with people applying for different jobs within the same organisation sometimes being asked for checks and sometimes not being asked? As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) pointed out, a person might be repeatedly asked to provide a new certificate. A prospective employer might not be interested in a three-month-old certificate but might want to see an up-to-date certificate, so the person will be faced repeatedly with having to find the money to pay for one.

Mr. Howard: On the first point, I do not think that the provisions would give rise to the anomalous consequences

identified by the hon. Gentleman, but that could be looked at in detail in Committee and on Report. On the second point, we do not envisage it being possible for repeated requests for new certificates to be made. We envisage a time limit so that it is not incumbent on someone in the circumstances identified by the hon. Gentleman repeatedly to have to reapply for fresh certificates.
As my noble friend the Minister of State signalled in another place, we believe that these measures will help to put an end to the practice of enforced subject access when an employer requires an applicant to exercise his access rights under the Data Protection Act 1988 in order to pass on information about his criminal record. That practice is undesirable. It is contrary to the spirit of the Data Protection Act and, because it reveals details of both spent and unspent convictions, it undermines the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. We appreciate that, if enforced subject access were to continue, it might also undermine this Bill, which seeks to protect information about spent convictions. We are considering, therefore, what steps can be taken to outlaw that practice. However, it is not straight-forward and it has implications that go wider than criminal records.

Mr. Beith: I am grateful for what the Home Secretary has just said about the Data Protection Act. Does he not recognise that, as a result of the Bill, any person applying for any job anywhere in the land, even a job that does not involve sensitive work with young children or security, may be required to produce a criminal conviction certificate, and that any employer, particularly a trustee or a director responsible to shareholders, will feel increasingly obliged to ask for such a certificate? Does he not recognise what a massive change that is to the labour market?

Mr. Howard: I doubt that the draconian consequences that the right hon. Gentleman has identified will flow from the Bill. We must, however, recognise the legitimate concerns that have been expressed about the need to protect those who need protecting. That is at the heart of these provisions.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: rose—

Mr. Howard: I would like to make progress, if I may.
The Bill will significantly strengthen the fight against serious and organised crime. The creation of the NCIS Service Authority and a National Crime Squad will ensure that intelligence is properly harnessed and that operations are carefully targeted to inflict the maximum damage on organised crime. Putting the authorisation of intrusive surveillance onto a statutory footing will ensure that the police and customs will have the tools that they need to prevent and investigate serious, organised crime, and there will be new, additional safeguards against any possible abuse. The provisions for wider access to criminal records will improve the protection of vulnerable members of our community and reduce the opportunities for those determined to abuse positions of trust to commit crime.
This is an important Bill. It will make life very much harder for major criminals. That is what the public want to see. That is what the whole House wants to see. That is, I believe, what the Bill achieves. I commend it to the House.

5 pm

Mr. Jack Straw: Over the past decade and a half, recorded crime in this country has more than doubled. As the British crime survey and a number of local crime surveys have shown, the level of crime today is such that, over a three-year period, nearly three quarters of the population will have had a personal experience of crime, either directly as a victim or indirectly through having to share the distress and anxiety of crime committed against the family or a close friend. What turns the screw even more is the fact that the poorer people are, the more likely they are to be a victim of crime.
Much of the crime that affects people in their day-to-day lives appears to be disorganised: a crowd of youths whose behaviour changes from the exuberant to the threatening; the opportunist theft of a car stereo; or the quick break-in of a dwelling when the chance presents itself. But behind much apparently disorganised crime lies something altogether more sinister—organised crime.
Organised crime used to be involved mainly in armed robberies and protection rackets. Now its scope has extended far wider. Every gram of heroin that is sold on a street corner, every Ecstasy tablet that is passed on in a club, has behind its lethal trade some of the most ruthless individuals and gangs ever seen. On top of that danger, there is the continuing threat from terrorism. Staff turning up for work in Canary Wharf, or shoppers hoping to enjoy a Saturday morning shopping in Manchester, have a right to expect that they can go about their business without their lives being wrecked by the mindless, callous acts of the Provisional IRA.
I wish for the world of "Dixon of Dock Green"—but if that world ever existed, it has been and gone for sure. The most important civil liberty that it is our duty to protect is the freedom for citizens to live without fear. If we are to create safer, more orderly communities, we have to tackle crime and disorder as it occurs on the street, and take action to deal with its underlying causes. However, we also have to tackle serious crime more effectively and ensure that, within a clear framework of the law, the police and the other law enforcement agencies are given the tools to do the job that we ask them to undertake on our behalf.
In July 1995, the Home Affairs Select Committee produced an important report on organised crime. It was a unanimous report. It made many recommendations, one of which was that NCIS and the crime squads should be put on a proper statutory footing, and so, too, should the use of intrusive surveillance techniques by the police. The report was widely welcomed. It was also welcomed by Labour Front Benchers.
This time last year, during the proceedings on the Security Service Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and I referred to the need to bring the report's recommendations to fruition. Parts I, II and III of the Bill seek to do that. Parts I and II provide a proper statutory framework, for the first time, for NCIS and a new National Crime Squad.
Seventeen years ago, in a private Member's Bill that I introduced to improve police accountability, I proposed that there should be a new national police agency to take over the national police functions of the Metropolitan police and other agencies and organisations. Our tradition of locally based policing, with independent chief police officers, is key to the success of the British police and the

fact that they are far more sensitive to local communities than many of their counterparts in other countries. However, we undermine rather than strengthen that tradition if we pretend that all policing can be undertaken within the boundaries of a local force. Serious crime and terrorism are national and international. The overall organisation of the police must reflect that.
I deal with those two parts of the Bill briefly because of time. Their provisions will need to be examined with great care in Standing Committee. Given the starting point, however, it was probably inevitable that two separate organisations had to be created. The fact that, in practice, their role will overlap is reflected in the requirement in the Bill for the supervising authorities to have common members. I believe that we have to keep an open mind on whether at some stage, and in the light of experience, a single national body would be the more effective arrangement.
I now deal with part III, on intrusive surveillance, which has aroused great interest outside and inside the House. The use by the police and other agencies of covert, secretive methods to obtain information is rightly one of the most sensitive parts of the criminal justice system. We know from the experience of other countries, including the United States during the McCarthyite period, that there is always the potential for such powers to be abused. Effective controls and checks must therefore be in place to ensure that that does not happen, to ensure that powers that should be used to detect and deter serious crime and terrorism are not more widely used to undermine the freedoms that citizens in a democracy should enjoy.
In securing a proper balance, and in judging what is proposed in the Bill, it is important that we begin from what is and what has been, not from what might have been but was not. When debate about the intrusive surveillance powers of the Bill first began in public, last November, much of the comment was so profoundly misinformed as to be downright ignorant. One newspaper commentator claimed that the Bill changed our constitution because
for the first time in history, the police will exercise these powers without having to get a warrant".
That statement, picked up by many others, was completely untrue.

Mr. Budgen: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in view of the widespread misunderstanding, it would be very much better—to restore public confidence—if these issues, particularly that of prior authorisation, were debated on the Floor of the House rather than tucked away in semi-privacy upstairs?

Mr. Straw: I do not regard a Standing Committee as operating in semi-privacy—it is open to the press just as much as debates on the Floor of the House. Nor do I wish to subscribe to the hon. Gentleman's proposition that every Bill of importance has to be debated on the Floor of the House. [Interruption.] It is not, in my judgment, the same constitutional matter, for example, as the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which palpably had to be debated on the Floor of the House because it had enormous constitutional significance. The hon. Gentleman and I may disagree on whether the Police Bill is a constitutional measure. I have made it clear, and will do so again, that I regard this measure as one that improves safeguards in the exercise of these powers rather than introducing these powers in this country in the first place.
I ask my hon. Friends and the hon. Gentleman to bear it in mind that, on all the best estimates, this Session of Parliament cannot last for much more than five weeks. There are other very important measures to which we attach great importance, particularly the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, and I would not wish extensive discussion on the Police Bill on the Floor of the House to lead to a situation where the Firearms (Amendment) Bill could not be enacted.

Mr. Cohen: Why can my hon. Friend not introduce a firearms Bill, as the first Bill of a Labour Government? Then at least we would not have a Bill that is as bad as the Police Bill.

Mr. Straw: I do not share my hon. Friend's view about the Police Bill. I also wish to see the Firearms (Amendment) Bill on the statute book as quickly as possible. If we form a Government—as I believe and hope we shall—we could not introduce such a Bill before July, so it probably would not get on the statute book until next December at the earliest. That is not an acceptable timetable for the introduction of a measure that should have been law by now.
The statement made in one of our serious newspapers that, for the first time in history, the police will exercise these powers without having to obtain a warrant was completely untrue. Intrusive surveillance techniques using electronic equipment have been used by the police for at least 30 years without a warrant being required or there being any formal system of judicial supervision.
Since at least 1965, Appeal Courts have accepted that evidence obtained in that way is admissible in the criminal courts. Until 1977, there was no Home Office guidance to police forces on how they should use these powers. In 1977, the Home Office, under my right hon. and learned Friend Lord Rees as Home Secretary, issued a page and a half of guidance in general terms. However, that guidance was not published until 1982. In 1984, more detailed guidance was issued and published, which made it the personal responsibility of chief officers to authorise the use of those techniques. Despite the fact that the guidance was made public, there were few calls at that stage for the system to be put on a statutory footing. No arrangements for systematic judicial supervision or for central record keeping were put in place.

Mrs. Clwyd: My hon. Friend will recall that I asked the Home Secretary how many applications had been received from the police to access the United Kingdom Cellnet system. He said that that information was not held centrally. In fact, he boasted that it was a good thing that it was not held centrally. The Interception of Communications Act 1985 provides that interception can be carried out only under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State. In that case, either the Secretary of State is breaking the law, or the police are.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, and for raising it with me previously outside the House. I thought that the Secretary of State's answer was one of the least convincing of all those that he gave in reply to interventions—and there was much

competition for that prize. It is nonsense for the Secretary of State to suggest that, because some decisions are rightly made by independent chief officers, there should not be proper and comprehensive record keeping. Records are kept on plenty of other police operations, so they should be kept in that case.
The interception of telephone calls from mobile telephones is covered by the Interception of Communications Act 1985 under the proper statutory system, so there should be information about that. From reading the written answer that my hon. Friend was given, it does not appear that the collection of subscriber data—when the calls were made and from where—is subject to the 1985 Act. The collection of such data by the police may be necessary for the detection of serious crime, but it should be regulated either by the 1985 Act, by this Bill or by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It must be subject to statutory supervision under one of those provisions, and we shall certainly raise this matter in Committee.
Despite the fact that no central records have been kept, or any systematic arrangement for judicial supervision made, chief police officers have not been unaccountable for their actions in authorising intrusive surveillance. On a number of occasions, they have been called by the defence to give evidence in court to justify their decision to authorise such surveillance. Although a non-statutory system was and is inherently unsatisfactory, it must also be said that, in practice, there have been remarkably few complaints about the way in which chief officers have met their responsibilities.
This time last year, the role of the Security Service was extended, with our backing, so that it could support the police in the detection of serious crime. The same Bill required that the use of intrusive surveillance techniques by the Security Service in that area should require, by statute, the Home Secretary's authorisation. That put into sharp relief the need for the use of those powers by the police to be placed on a similar statutory footing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and I—and, it has to be said, the Government Front-Bench team—made clear when we discussed that Bill.
The Police Bill, as originally published, provided that the use of any intrusive surveillance techniques by the police had to be authorised by the relevant chief officer according to strict criteria laid down in the Bill. There was then to be a system of judicial supervision of the use of such powers by a commissioner, who would be a senior High Court judge appointed for that purpose. That system parallelled that used for phone tapping, for which the commissioner is Lord Nolan, who is better known for his work on improving—or trying to improve—standards of conduct in public life.
I said when the Bill was published, and I say again, that, on any basis, the system in the original Bill was a significant advance on the non-statutory arrangements that have applied for the past 30 years. However, we were concerned from the start that the Bill provided insufficient protection for the work of lawyers, doctors and journalists. As the debate has progressed, I have also accepted that the basic arrangements in the Bill for judicial supervision should be significantly strengthened.
In the other place, the Government accepted our proposals that the number of commissioners should be increased from one to at least three, and that for all


authorisations the time scale for informing a commissioner of an intrusion had to be shortened, so that, in many non-urgent cases, the commissioner could quash an authorisation before the operation had taken place.

Mr. Forman: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument and his explanation of the way in which his party's policy has evolved. What is his understanding of the words in clause 91(2):
Where it is not reasonably practicable to apply to a Commissioner for advance approval under subsection (1)"?
Can the hon. Gentleman give the House a good example, from his own knowledge or from his thought processes, of where it would not be reasonably practicable to apply to the commissioner?

Mr. Straw: The purpose of the phrase "not reasonably practicable" was to allow the police, when there was great urgency about placing some intrusive device, to carry out the operation on the chief officer's authorisation, and retrospectively to obtain the consent of the commissioner. If, for example, a kidnapping has taken place, the police may not have time to plan an operation, as they would for a drug dealer. With a kidnapping, they have to act quickly: they may be following a vehicle that is going to the place where the kidnap victim is to be held, but they would not know where that place was until moments before the kidnap victim and the kidnappers arrived. It would be absurd to expect the police to seek approval from a commissioner, and even more absurd to expect them to go to a circuit judge.
I have discussed this matter extensively with chief officers, as I hope the House would have expected me to do. I do not believe that they want to abuse that provision, because if they did, their authorisations would be quashed by a commissioner. Moreover, at the end of the year, the commissioner, in his report to the Prime Minister, which could be published, could name a chief officer who had transgressed the terms of the Bill. It would still be possible, as it has been for the past 30 years, for the chief officer to be taken to court to explain why he gave his authorisation.
A code of practice will be laid down under the provisions of the Bill, which will require the approval of both Houses of Parliament by affirmative resolution following consultation. It is my hope and intention that that code of practice should more specifically lay down the circumstances in which the urgency provisions should apply.

Mr. Mackinlay: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be more appropriate if we at least had the draft code of practice before us on Second Reading? The contents of the code go to the heart of this part of the Bill. We could make a much more intelligent contribution to the debate, and decide how to vote later this evening, if we knew the contents and intentions of the code of practice.

Mr. Straw: It is a fact that the code of practice has already been published in draft, and was available for discussion in the other place.

Mr. Mackinlay: I was able to extract a copy by fax from the Home Secretary's office at lunchtime, but copies

have not been available in the Vote Office: as far as I am aware, they are not available now, although I have asked for them repeatedly. I do not know whether I can use your good offices, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have that checked, but copies of the code are not available. I defy my hon. Friend to obtain a copy in the next few minutes.

Mr. Straw: I know that the code is available, because I happen to have a copy. If it is not available in the Vote Office, it ought to be. I entirely accept that it should be available to the House, but that is the responsibility of the Home Secretary and his colleagues, not my responsibility. It is a matter of fact that the code of practice is available—I have read it—but I do not believe that it should go into law in its present form. There should be the widest possible consultation on its terms, as indeed there will be.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman gave an instance of the bugging of property in an emergency. I do not think that the House has any difficulty with that, in that a helicopter or an unmarked police car may follow a vehicle, and other provisions in criminal law give authority in such circumstances. Will the hon. Gentleman reflect, however, on the question of homes and property? What emergency could arise that would not be covered by the remit of the Security Service Act 1996—which the hon. Gentleman mentioned himself—and the warranting that is necessary in that context? The intelligence services can follow through serious crimes involving, for instance, drugs.
What circumstances are so urgent that the proper provisions of law that now exist—which give police officers the right of access to premises, and so forth—are not sufficient? What could bring about circumstances that are so urgent that action in the tradition of the whole common law world requires prior authorisation?

Mr. Straw: I do not think that occasions will arise very often when, if the police want to place an intrusive device in someone's home or office, the circumstances will be so urgent as to require them to use the second limb of the amendment that was passed in the House of Lords by a large majority, but there will be some such occasions. I gave the example of kidnapping. I understand that many kidnap victims are taken to hotel rooms, but if they were taken to private houses exactly the circumstances that I have described would arise.

Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once already. I will give way to him again, but then I should like to get on with my speech.

Mr. Budgen: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the use of a code of practice is unsatisfactory, particularly when the House does not have access to it? It would be much better if the code were incorporated in the statute, which would require either the House or the Standing Committee to consider it a great deal more carefully.

Mr. Straw: One of the great benefits of Standing Committee proceedings, in my experience—I do not know how often the hon. Gentleman sits on such Committees—is that the details of such codes, and of other provisions, can be examined at length. Far more


forensic scrutiny is possible in Committee than is possible on the Floor of the House. Moreover, the code of practice is not an informal document; it will take the form of a statutory instrument, which must be subject to an affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Mackinlay: That means one hour's debate.

Mr. Straw: I accept that. If my hon. Friend wants to serve on the Standing Committee and suggest that more time should be allowed, that is fine, but the arrangement seems very sensible to me. Labour as well as Conservative Bills have provided in the past, and will provide in the future, for detailed matters relating to the operational parts of Bills to be the subject of more extensive codes and guidance.
By the largest majority in recent history, the other place approved a Labour amendment requiring the prior approval of a commissioner for any intrusion into premises without the consent of the occupier. As we have heard, the same amendment accepted that, in urgent cases, an operation could go ahead on the authorisation of the chief officer, with scrutiny by a commissioner as soon thereafter as reasonably practicable.
In framing the amendment for their Lordships, I sought to do two things. First, I sought to ensure that people's right to believe that their home was their castle was guaranteed; secondly, I sought to ensure that controls on the police were proportionate, and did not gratuitously undermine the difficult and sometimes dangerous work that we expect them to do on our behalf. It is because of the need to balance those two considerations that we have never supported, and do not support, the Liberal Democrat amendment which was also passed by their Lordships, albeit with a smaller majority.
That amendment substitutes a circuit judge for the chief officer in every case. It has two overwhelming defects. First, it takes no account of the reality of some police operations in which the need for speed is essential. An Englishman's home may be his castle, but an Englishman's stolen car is not. Yet, when the police suddenly, and with notice, had the opportunity to place a tracking device on a stolen vehicle that was about to be used in an armed robbery or for drug running, the Liberal Democrats would expect them in every case to go off to a circuit judge for approval before the operation could take place. The practical effect would be that the operation could not take place at all.
The second objection is this: a transfer of decision for the initial authorisation from a chief officer to a circuit judge would have wholly undermined the responsibility of the chief officer for the actions of the police under his command. The fact that under the present arrangements, and under the Bill, the chief officer may have to answer in court for his or her authorisation is a powerful discipline and control on the use of such powers. It is possible that the Liberal Democrats have not been immune to those arguments. Their reasoned amendment says something remarkably different from the policy that they pursued in the other place. It speaks only of prior judicial authorisation for the bugging of private places, which is a much more limited proposition than the Lords amendment.
Following their Lordships' decisions on our amendment, discussions took place between the Home Secretary and me. The result of those discussions is reflected in a written answer given to me yesterday evening, which will form the basis of amendments that will be tabled in Committee in due course.

Mr. Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will forgive me. We were told a few minutes ago that the draft code of practice was available, and I said that it was not. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has now been to the Vote Office to check, and has discovered that it is not available. It is clearly available to Privy Councillors, but not to hon. Members. I cannot make the position any plainer: a document that has been referred to in the House is not available to hon. Members. Could we have some protection and intervention on your behalf, Mr. Deputy Speaker? It is fundamentally important for us to have access to the document.

Mr. Howard: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point about the code is that it will need to be amended—in particular, to deal with many of the points that have been commented on this afternoon. I am, however, making arrangements for it to be deposited in the Table Office as soon as possible.

Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let me deal with the other points first. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) will have heard what the Home Secretary said. As the document has not been formally laid before the House, it is not up to the Clerks to make it available; it is up to the Government.

Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the Home Secretary confirm that he is proposing to lay the code of practice before the House in the form of a statutory instrument, and that the House will have no opportunity to amend it or consider it in detail? Will he confirm that it will be either passed or rejected after a debate in general terms lasting an hour and a half?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, but I am sure that the Home Secretary will have heard what he has said.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have elevated me to the Privy Council, but that is premature, although some of us may hope.
The Home Secretary spoke of puffs of smoke. I can only say that what was required to make him perform what has been described as a U-turn was not so much a puff of smoke as a single breath from an hereditary peer—or two or three.

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Straw: I am coming to the Secretary of State's aid, if he would hang on just one moment.
In his defence, and mine, our capacity for reassessing our position in the light of representations is nothing compared with that of The Guardian. It has waxed eloquent about this issue since it discovered towards the end of November that it was a great matter of civil liberties. I speak only in the Secretary of State's defence—I see it as part of my role. It must be said in his favour that, when he made a speech on 2 July to the Association of Chief Police Officers setting out in considerable detail what would be in the Bill and going through the various ways in which surveillance could be achieved—for example, under provisions that were exactly those in the original Bill—The Guardian did not report it as a major breach of civil liberties.
I have The Guardian of Wednesday 3 July 1996. It is a useful historical record, which The Guardian, as we speak, is trying to excise from its database. It says:
Howard sets statutory code for police bugs
and then claims that the Home Secretary's proposal would lead to
Greater accountability in police bugging and electronic surveillance operations".
It has been suggested occasionally that some people have come late to this issue. I say in defence of the Secretary of State defence and myself only that he and I were there a bit before some of the newspapers.

Mr. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: And certainly before the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman had better look back to what I said more than a year ago on the Security Services Bill, or he could refer to his letter to The Guardian of 30 November, in which he said:
In what has to be a system which operates in secret, we think that, in practice, there will be greater accountability if the onus is placed squarely on the chief officer to ensure compliance with the law, and if his or her decisions are then subject to effective supervision by a senior judge".
There is nothing about prior approval. I welcome his conversion; I simply wish that it had been more complete.

Mr. Straw: That is exactly my position and I made that clear. One of the reasons why the Liberal Democrat amendments are not just wrong but daft is that, apart from being wholly inoperable and wrecking important surveillance—for example, by proposing tracking devices on vehicles, despite all evidence from the police—they remove the responsibility rather than the power of the chief officer.
The right hon. Gentleman, who has been elevated to that noble position, should talk to middle-ranking police officers who have had to go to their chief officers to gain these authorisations. They have told me—I take the advice of those to whom I have spoken seriously—that, in practice, it is far easier to obtain authorisation for a warrant from a circuit judge or magistrate under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 than to get authorisation for placing intrusive surveillance from the chief constable. Why? It is because, unlike circuit judges, chief constables know that, if they get it wrong—or even if they get it right—they may have to justify their decision in open

court. That is why I was determined to stick to the Bill's central provision that the responsibility for authorisation had to be on the chief officer, with judicial supervision.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have listened to the views of chief officers, middle-ranking officers and serving police officers over a long period, not only in my capacity as a party spokesman but as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The hon. Gentleman's description of the procedure employed by chief constables is correct. As it takes some time for such an application to be properly considered by a chief constable, why cannot the hon. Gentleman envisage the system being used—as it is now in front of a chief constable—to ensure that prior authorisation is given, even in urgent cases? Under the present system, chief constables have to deal with urgent cases in a formalised way, as does the Home Secretary in respect of the Security Service. The system can be made sufficiently efficient to do that.

Mr. Straw: If the right hon. Gentleman has talked to the police, it is a great shame that he did not pass on what he learned to Lord Rodgers, whose opinions were informed by almost total ignorance about police operations in this sector. I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman did not learn from chief constables that in urgent cases the chief officer must give authorisation by telephone. Let me give him an example that would have been completely disrupted by his amendment.
There is a difference—the Home Secretary can speak for himself about this—between the sort of operation that may be undertaken by the Security Service and what a local police force may do, but let me take a tangible example that occurs quite often. When the police spot a stolen vehicle that they have reasonable grounds for believing is about to be used in an armed robbery, they will wish to place a tracking device on it. Under the amendment moved by the noble Lord Rodgers, the authorisation for placing the tracking device under the vehicle would have to be subject to approval by a circuit judge. So we would have an extraordinary pantomime whereby the detective constable in charge of tracking the vehicle would have to stop, go to the chief officer and fill in a variety of forms. He would then have to find a circuit judge.

Mr. Beith: He does that now.

Mr. Straw: No, he does not. After finding a circuit judge, he would have to gain authorisation. The detective constable might be lucky and the stolen vehicle might still be there 24 or 48 hours later when he returns. However, the evidence that I have suggests that, on the whole, armed robbers do not oblige the police in that way.
I was told—I am sorry to say that I accepted this in terms of the advice from the police—that the proposal would wreck police operations and lead to the committing of many more armed robberies and to the guilty getting away with it. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is looking perplexed. By now, he should appreciate what his noble Friends in the other place did


not appreciate: that their amendment would have undermined the responsibility of the chief constable and wrecked many possible police operations.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I shall do so for the last time.

Mr. Allason: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the issue of electronic surveillance, will he clarify two issues? Is it Opposition policy that the Bill should extend warrant powers to include telephone data—not just the interception of telephone conversations, but details of telephone calls from a particular number?
Does the hon. Gentleman propose to include all passive tracking devices? As he has spoken to the police and to other agencies, he will be aware that one method of electronic tracking is passive. It involves painting the top of a suspect vehicle with invisible infrared reflective paint that can be tracked by helicopter. It is a useful device, but it does not involve any electronic intrusion of the vehicle concerned. Under those circumstances, would he consider extending the Bill or does he think that they are covered already?

Mr. Straw: It is a moot point whether invisible ink on the top of a vehicle amounts to interference with property as defined by the Bill. I do not have a specific answer to the hon. Gentleman's second point. It is no doubt a matter that he will wish to pursue if he gets on to the Standing Committee. On the first point, as I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for, which valley is it—

Mr. Alun Michael: Cynon Valley.

Mr. Straw: Cynon Valley. [Interruption.] I am sorry. I was brought up in Essex, not in Llanelli like the Home Secretary, and I have never been able to pronounce Welsh names—or indeed to remember them.
The first point that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) made involved whether data relating to telephone calls should be subject to the Bill's provisions. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), it should be subject to the provisions of one or other of the Acts—the Interception of Communications Act 1985, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act or this Bill—that control the use of such operations by the police. I want to think about it, but the matter should be put on a proper statutory footing.

Mr. Allason: rose—

Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I shall not give way; the Secretary of State spoke for more than an hour. I have spoken for 38 minutes and many other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate.
The amendments that will be proposed will significantly strengthen judicial supervision under the Bill. Prior authorisation, subject to an urgency provision, will be required for intrusion into homes, offices and hotel

bedrooms. That seems to cover the main "private places" referred to in the Liberal Democrats' reasoned amendment, which represents another U-turn by them.
The absolute confidentiality of discussions between lawyer and client is essential if the legal profession is to operate effectively in any society. That principle is an absolute, and it is the essence of legal professional privilege. When dealing with an amendment tabled by Labour in the other place, Baroness Blatch said:
We accept entirely that the police should not be allowed to set out to listen in or otherwise to interfere with confidential conversations between a lawyer and his client or a doctor and his patient."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 January 1997; Vol. 577, c. 1095.]
That is a very important statement by the Minister on behalf of the Government, and it is certainly one to which we entirely subscribe.
Our view, and the essence of what we have argued in the other place, is that intrusion into what would otherwise be legal professional privilege should be allowed only when privilege is used by people who are not lawyers as a cloak for a criminal conspiracy or criminal activities, or when lawyers themselves are involved in similar unlawful activities.
The amendments will also make provision, similar to that contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, for doctors and journalists, and, as we have heard, they will preserve the absolute sanctity of the confessional. As a communicating member of the Church of England, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) for informing us that confession occurs in Protestant churches as well as in the Roman Church. I was not aware of that in my own church, and I note that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) was not either.

Mr. John Greenway: indicated assent.

Mr. Straw: This Bill has been a great learning process.

Mr. Mackinlay: rose—

Mr. Straw: I think that I am about to learn something more.

Mr. Mackinlay: Indeed. One of the parts of the law of England is the Church of England's unrepealed Canon 113 of 1603, which enshrines the secrecy of confession in the established Church. The point, however, is not merely a matter of the secrecy of confession; it is that all ministers of religion should have access to and conversations with members of their flock, ring-fenced and privileged. Although I welcome the undertakings about lawyers and doctors given by the shadow Home Secretary, will he undertake that—if he has stewardship over the code of practice—conversations between ministers of religion and members of their flock will be explicitly exempted from surveillance and bugging provisions?

Mr. Straw: I will discuss that in more detail with my hon. Friend, and will learn a good deal more about his expertise regarding the 1603 settlement. I have read the Book of Common Prayer from cover to cover many times while sitting in chapel at school, but I do not remember


that part—although I remember that the 42 articles were reduced to 39. I certainly accept that, if confession takes place in Protestant churches, we shall have to consider the matter seriously. I have absolutely no intention of undermining the sanctity of the confessional.
Under the original Bill, the commissioner would apply the test of judicial review. In other words, the commissioner would have to examine an authorisation and judge whether it was so unreasonable that no sensible officer could have granted it. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for proposing that there should be a more positive test, which would be similar to, although not exactly the same as, that which applies in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
We never intended that the commissioner should second-guess. The issue was always whether the chief officer would base his decision on the criteria in the Bill, and whether the commissioner—either prospectively or retrospectively—would check that decision to satisfy himself that the chief officer of police had based his decision on the Bill's criteria.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: rose—

Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I must make progress; I have already been generous with my time and with that of the House.
The Secretary of State has made provision for appeals and for improvements to the tenure and status of the commissioners by ensuring that they will be appointed by the Prime Minister, after consultation with the Lord Chancellor; that they will serve for a set term; and that they can be removed only by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
Before moving on to part V of the Bill, I should mention that, in the course of an answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), the Secretary of State attempted to invent Labour party policy on the third pillar. I have made it clear that that was an invention, and my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has issued this statement:
The Labour party has always been clear that it will retain the veto on issues in the Third Pillar of the European Union such as border controls, immigration, asylum and police co-operation. We have never changed that position and
the Secretary of State's
suggestion to the contrary is just another"—
I will have to translate the phrase as "inexactitude", although I am sure that hon. Members know what that word means outside the House.

Mr. Benn: The precedent for the matter is, of course, nothing whatever to do with Europe. The United States supplied American warheads to Britain, for nuclear purposes, on the condition that it supervised all the intelligence services in Britain—I know that because I was in charge of them—and that all the Government communication headquarters bugging that goes on be made available to the Central Intelligence Agency. It is not a new point.
My question was whether, under security arrangements already entered into, the information would be available—as I believe it will be—to the European security authority, which is just as keen to deal with crime as the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend must not

think that it is a precedent, because it has gone on for years. The trouble is that the matter has never been taken seriously, although it has been written about by many people, including me.

Mr. Straw: As we now know, I am not a member of the Privy Council. My right hon. Friend is, and I do not have anything like his experience or knowledge of the secret parts of Government. Therefore, I am in no position to comment on them.
I have already mentioned the code of practice. If Labour is elected, I believe that there should be wide consultation on the draft before it is laid before the House. I also believe that, after the new statutory regime has been in operation for a year, a full review should be undertaken, with an opportunity for a debate. If we form the next Government, I shall seek to ensure that that is done.
On part V of the Bill, the maintenance of a comprehensive system of criminal records is essential for the prevention and detection of crime, for the wider protection of the public and as part of the sentencing process and the sentence. In many cases, although by no means all, the shame of having a criminal record is as much a punishment as a formal sanction of the court.
However, an important balance should be struck. For less serious offences—which pose no significant risk to the public—there must come a moment when an offender can draw a line in the sand and say that he or she has paid the price to society for his or her crime and that he or she should now be given the opportunity to put the past behind him or her. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 was and remains an important measure in ensuring that offenders are rehabilitated and go on to lead law-abiding lives.
There are more serious crimes, for which the balance must be struck at a different. point—as the 1974 Act realises, with its distinction between sentences below or above 30 months. In one sense, of course, the need to rehabilitate such offenders is all the greater because of the gravity of their crime, and we should never give up trying to do that, but there is also a much greater risk to the public from such offenders. Therefore, the public must have a greater right, in properly defined circumstances, to know about the offender's record.
There is a third category of offender, encompassing those whose formal criminal record may be very slight or non-existent but whose behaviour poses the greatest risks to communities, and especially to women and to children. The challenge to achieve the right balance between civil liberties and public protection is at its most acute with the third category. So far as I am aware, Thomas Hamilton, in Dunblane, had no serious previous convictions to his name, and he could—and did—claim that he was of good character. However, as we know from the Cullen inquiry, plenty of intelligence showed the terrible side of his character. Had it been possible to take greater account of that intelligence, Hamilton would not have been able to obtain a firearms certificate and he might have been prevented from his wholly undesirable involvement with children.
Part V attempts to reflect what I believe is a natural hierarchy of seriousness in criminal convictions. There will, as we have heard, be ordinary criminal conviction certificates that cover only non-spent convictions, criminal record certificates that cover all convictions and enhanced criminal record certificates that also cover non-conviction information.
I shall deal first with the more comprehensive certificates and then return to the ordinary ones. Clause 104 provides for criminal record certificates in which, for more sensitive areas of employment, full criminal record checks, including spent and unspent convictions, will be made available to employers by the agency. The types of employment covered by the arrangements will include jobs that involve regular contact with children and other vulnerable groups—the elderly, sick or handicapped people—those involved in work related to national security, the administration of the law, sensitive licensing areas or professions in areas such as health, pharmacy and the law, and senior managers in banking and financial services.
Clause 105 provides for enhanced criminal record certificates on which, for particular sensitive areas of work or licensing, additional information will be made available from local police records. That will include some non-conviction information. The posts envisaged are prospective employees, trainees and volunteers having regular, unsupervised contact with children and young people under the age of 18 and those applying for gaming, betting and lottery licences. The Penal Affairs Consortium correctly said that those provisions made sense.
The purpose of criminal conviction certificates is, in one sense, prosaic and straightforward. The certificate is a facility that enables an individual to verify a statement made by him in circumstances in which he should in any event be under an obligation to tell the truth. As someone involved in the employment of staff—as a Member of Parliament and, more frequently, as a school governor—I want and need to know whether an applicant for a position has any unspent previous convictions. I need to know not to blackball an applicant with a record, but to have the fullest information available when reaching a decision.
Applicants for any job certify that the information given is correct. Giving false information is grounds for instant dismissal when an appointment is made. On one level, therefore, the availability of the certificates can be presented as administrative, making it easier to provide firm and accurate information that applicants have to provide anyway.
However, because there will be a formal and straightforward system where none has existed, demand for certificates may grow. That has led responsible organisations that deal with offenders and ex-offenders to express understandable anxieties that the provisions could make it much more difficult to rehabilitate former criminals through gainful employment. Those anxieties must be addressed seriously in Committee.
There is an overwhelming case for making the provisions of the code of practice mandatory for employers in respect of all the certificates. The code will be mandatory for employers in respect of the higher level certificates, so why not in respect of all of them? We must also recognise that, if we want more, rather than fewer, ex-offenders appropriately employed—and therefore going straight—we have to change the attitudes of many job givers as much as we have to change the law.
The White Paper "On the Record" said that there would be a requirement in the code for employers to have a written policy and strategy for the employment of ex-offenders. That commitment was wrongly dropped in

the other place. The commitment should apply to all certificates. Some employers, large and small, are enlightened in their employment of ex-offenders. We must draw on that best practice. Along with the widened provisions of a code of practice, we should try to agree a protocol on the employment of ex-offenders with the main employers' organisations and the trade unions. In government, I would certainly aim for that.
In the other place, an amendment was passed by two votes to exempt volunteers from the charges for certificates. Voluntary organisations and their volunteers play a critical role in society, enriching and binding it. We need more volunteers, not fewer. We need to make it easier, not more difficult, for people to volunteer. The likely charge of £5 to £8 for the certificates will appear modest to some volunteers, but may appear gratuitously off-putting for others. There is a strong view throughout the voluntary sector that it would be wrong to make the charge a tax on volunteering. Voluntary organisations would therefore have to pick up the tab. It is also felt that the charge is inconsistent with the Government's declared intention in the "make a difference" initiative.
The whole House—not least Labour Members—must recognise that there would be a cost to the public purse in meeting the so-called Weatherill amendment. I am not certain that the upper limit cost of £200 million bears much serious examination. The figure appears to be based on 20 million volunteers paying £10 a time. Informed estimates given by several organisations are that no more than 4 million people have direct access to children and vulnerable people. The figure at the lower end of the rough estimate of charges, which is all that we have to go on, is only one tenth of that used by the Minister. There is an annual turnover of 20 per cent., so the annual costs might be lower, at about £4 million—a rather different scale of problem from that suggested by the Secretary of State, although it is still a cost to the public purse.

Ms Jean Corston: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem affects not merely voluntary organisations? There are 100,000 registered child minders in this country, many of whom do not earn much more than £2 an hour. A child minder with a partner and several teenage children might have to pay as much as £50 for certification. Would that threaten the registration process and encourage some people not to register as child minders? The National Childminding Association has raised that issue.

Mr. Straw: I accept the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed, and I hope that the matter can be discussed in more detail in Committee.
I want volunteers and voluntary organisations to be helped as much as possible. I am glad that the Secretary of State has accepted the proposition that there should be a power to exempt categories of volunteers from the charges. I accept that it may be necessary to have a power to exempt other categories, such as the long-term unemployed. The figures and mechanisms for that deserve further scrutiny. We shall scrutinise that in Committee. In government, we would seek to minimise the burden on voluntary organisations as public finances allowed, although I do not think that we could end it altogether.
The Bill proposes the creation of a new agency. The experience of setting up new agencies is not happy. The Crown Prosecution Service and the Child Support


Agency are the best and worst examples, but by no means the only ones. Agencies set up from scratch and all at once have a habit of early systemic failure that can last for years. A high error rate has had severe consequences for the CSA. If the new criminal records agency made similar mistakes, it would be catastrophic for public confidence and would undermine the purpose for which it is to be established.
I therefore believe that the agency must be created at a measured pace. There is a strong case for phasing in the arrangements, starting with the certificate regime that is most needed to protect the public—that contained in clauses 104 and 105 for criminal records certificates and enhanced certificates. Once that system had bedded down, the regime in clause 103 could be introduced. That phasing would also allow more time for consultation with employers, trade unions and voluntary organisations about appropriate safeguards for the issue of certificates.
The first three parts of the Bill contain measures that we have sought to put NCIS, the crime squads and intrusive surveillance on a proper statutory basis. We also support the establishment of the criminal records agency, but with the important safeguards and reservations that I have expressed. We shall ensure that the detail of the Bill is properly examined in Committee and on Report. Meanwhile, we shall ensure that the Bill receives its Second Reading.

Sir Nicholas Scott: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a modest contribution to the debate. I shall be brief because I know that many others want to speak. I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to those present in the Chamber, as I shall not be present for the whole debate because of unavoidable commitments outside the House later this evening.
The thrust of the Bill is to protect the public from the activities of criminals. We know from reading newspapers, watching television and listening to the radio how an increasing threat of crime affects the lives of more and more of our citizens. At the same time, there is no doubt that we have to be conscious of the return of a terrorist threat to this country. We must respond to those twin threats in considering the Police Bill. Therefore, I strongly commend my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for bringing it forward. I realise that it had a fairly rough ride in another place. I congratulate my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Blatch on the way in which she handled the Bill and carried it forward in another place and on her letter of 19 November that set out very clearly the progress that had been made in doing so.
I certainly welcome the Bill. I welcome the new role of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the introduction of a National Crime Squad, which will pull together the regional crime squads that have operated so effectively. I share the view that I know is held by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, and I suspect many others on both sides of the House, that we do not want to create a Federal Bureau of Investigation or a national police force. Local policing is one of our great prizes in law and order, and we should hang on to it as much as possible. As we face the threats and increased mobility of criminals and terrorists, however, national co-ordination will be essential. The Bill addresses that,

and I shall return to it in a moment. Before doing so, I want to say a word or two about part V, to which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) referred towards the end of his speech.
I certainly welcome the proposal for a criminal records agency. I am sure that, in time, it will be widely accepted. However, many voluntary organisations still have some concern about the impact of the cost of differing certificates on the volunteers or trainers and the organisations that use their services. It is obviously immensely important that organisations ensure that, where financial matters are particularly sensitive or where people are responsible for children, young people, vulnerable, elderly, disabled or confused people, those who are employed in a paid or voluntary capacity are properly checked out and those organisations are able to establish their credentials before they take on the employment. Such a system is needed and can be of immense value.
We are told that the charges will be of the order of £5 to £6, or perhaps £8 to £10 for more sophisticated certificates. At first, I was hostile altogether to charging for such services. I have recently received a representation from the Central Council of Physical Recreation, which made a good argument against charges and said that it regarded them as a tax on volunteering and training. I am not sure whether I agree with that. I certainly understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would be loth to ask his Treasury colleagues for £200 million to remove any impact of charging on volunteers or the organisations concerned. However, I hope that he will be able to monitor the effects of charges on volunteering and the employment of people in such organisations. I want charging to be regarded not as a tax on volunteering but as a proper opportunity for people to be able to establish their credentials for a modest charge.
I return to the larger issue that is central to the Bill: intrusive surveillance. At first sight, it is not an attractive concept but, sadly, I regard it, as I suspect do most in the House, as extremely necessary. I first became conscious of the issue when I was the parliamentary private secretary to the former Home Secretary, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Carr. I remember the assiduity with which he dealt with representations from the intelligence services in passing the necessary warrants for surveillance of one sort or another. I also became conscious during my four years as Minister with responsibility for security in the Northern Ireland Office of how important surveillance was and how, frequently, it was important that such surveillance could be instituted immediately and some big, cumbersome procedure did not have to be undergone to bring about the necessary results.
Our task is to make it possible for the security forces—the police and other law enforcement agencies—to take speedy action to frustrate or apprehend those who are involved in crime or terrorism. I know of the immense responsibility resting on those who have duties in that sensitive area. The Bill meets the need for balance. The phrase "an Englishman's home is his castle", which has been used in this debate, remains an important part of our approach to society, but, sadly and all too frequently, there may be no other way in which information necessary to frustrate the aims of criminals and terrorists can be obtained but by surveillance.
The Bill's provisions and the establishment of the new roles for the two agencies will be of real and practical benefit to the police and other law enforcement agencies.


At the end of the day, we are seeking to underpin the efforts of the law enforcement agencies on behalf of our citizens. It is right that we should do so, although we must of course put such provisions on a proper statutory basis, which is what we are about in the Bill. We may be able to learn rather more when the elusive code comes before us and perhaps has to be amended, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has mentioned.
Intelligence is clearly vital as we face rising serious crime levels and the return of a terrorist threat. Increasingly, there is interaction between the two. Kidnapping, drugs, fraud, counterfeiting, vehicle and other serious crime often overlap with terrorist activity. If we are to frustrate the aims of such criminal activity, we shall have to get our act together. The Bill is an important step forward in that regard.
I welcome the change in the role of the NCIS. It was interesting to look at some statistics on the apprehension of sophisticated criminals over the past year. It looks as though about 26 arrests of serious criminals have taken place week by week in that time. We must congratulate the law enforcement agencies on that, but recognise that we need to improve in future. The bodies in the Bill will do much to counter increasing criminal and terrorist activity. Although local policing is, as I have said, absolutely vital and part of our heritage, we need a national strategy for such policing, and the Bill provides that foundation.
Obviously, accountability will be important. The chief constables and the commissioners who will consider applications for surveillance must be prepared to operate under codes of practice to ensure that their actions are commensurate with the real threat that is posed to our society. Those codes of practice should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill is necessary, and I commend my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for its introduction.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'this House believes that the Police Bill [Lords] is not an acceptable and effective measure unless the bugging of private places by the police is made fully subject to prior judicial authorisation; unless the power to require job applicants to produce a criminal conviction certificate is limited to posts for which there is a reasonable justification for such a certificate; and unless the service authorities for the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad are made up primarily of members of local police authorities.'
Our amendment sets out our concerns about three key areas of the Bill; the bugging provisions, the general criminal conviction certificate provisions—the wide nature of which will lead to a significant change in the rights of our citizens—and the excessive centralisation of the governing bodies of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad.
I am on record as supporting the need for a Bill on those issues. During the discussions that preceded the introduction of the Security Service Act 1996, I argued strongly for such a Bill. The Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I am a member, reported on the need for legislation. It would have been logical for the Bill to

be introduced at the same time as, or even before, the Security Service Act 1996. It is necessary to put bodies of the significance of NCIS and the National Crime Squad—which the Prime Minister announced nearly two years ago would be created from the regional crime squads—on a statutory footing.
It is also necessary to do something about the unauthorised, and in many respects illegal, bugging activities carried out by the police for many years, in the absence of any statutory power. They carried out the bugging to detect crime, in parallel with the use of powers by the security services, which had a proper authorisation procedure. When the two services began to work together on organised crime, the illogicality became obvious.
The powers on bugging are necessary, because they can be crucial in dealing with certain crimes, but safeguards are equally necessary. In the recent NCIS investigation, carried out by the chief constable of Northumbria, it became clear that nearly 1,000 records of telephone intercepts had gone missing. Their removal had not been recorded and they could not be traced. In that case, powers were not abused, but the carelessness and lack of proper procedures meant that rights were not safeguarded as they should have been. That case should be a warning to us as we consider the provisions on bugging.
The law has a serious gap, because it does not protect citizens against surveillance by others. Intrusive surveillance can be and is carried out by people who have less justification for doing so than the police. We are not adequately protected against that. The Government have promised in the past to take action, but they have not done so. It would be understandable for the police to be concerned that their use of the powers to bug in the detection of serious crime is being scrutinised carefully, while other more dubious people make use of the same technology to eavesdrop on people without justification. Equipment for the purpose is widely available in shops.
When the Bill was introduced, it was a great disappointment to people who thought it should include prior authorisation that paralleled the system that applied to the security services. From the beginning, there appeared to be an agreement between the Home Secretary and his Labour shadow. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) seemed satisfied that subsequent review would be sufficient. Of course, it is an improvement for bugging to have a legal basis and for applications to bug to be reviewed by commissions, but that is not an adequate substitute for prior authorisation of intrusion into private places. That is the essence of the Bill. The phrase "an Englishman's home is his castle" has been used, and we are talking about intrusion into places that people legitimately regard as private.
In another place, my noble Friend Lord Rodgers provided firm opposition. We have cause to be grateful to him, because I do not believe that the Labour party would otherwise have adopted its present view. In the end, of course, the Labour Front Benchers were also influenced by the views of many of their own peers. Many Labour Members in the other place voted for our amendment, and others were actively involved in persuading the hon. Member for Blackburn that his original position was not acceptable.

Mr. Budgen: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most disagreeable features of modern politics


is the way in which new Labour has tried to become more authoritarian than the Tory party? Its policy appears to be that, if the Tories are in favour of kicking a beggar once, new Labour is in favour of kicking a beggar twice. As a result, the official Opposition have not done their job on the Bill. Is that not an additional argument for insisting that the provisions on prior authorisation are considered on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Beith: Perhaps unusually, I agree with both parts of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. There is a dangerous closeness between the Home Secretary and his shadow, and both are under criticism from within their parties. Speaking as a Liberal Democrat, I welcome the different views that have been vigorously expressed in both the other parties. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that part III should be taken on the Floor of the House, because it involves major constitutional issues.
In another place, we argued that entry into a private place to carry out intrusive surveillance should require prior authorisation by a judge. In England and Wales, circuit judges would be appropriate and convenient, because they are available in all police areas. We are not persuaded that authorisation should be given by a judge who also serves as a member of the body of commissioners which subsequently reviews the authorisation. That is a fundamental weakness in the approach of the Government and the Labour party. Those who give the permission will subsequently review whether it was given satisfactorily. That does not make sense.

Mr. Straw: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House, but he was incorrect in what he said about the Lords amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which did not confine prior approval arrangements to premises. It covered any surveillance operation.

Mr. Beith: The Labour amendment did not restrict the provisions to private residences: it would also apply them to the Arthur Daley warehouse which, as I shall shortly argue, need not be covered by the prior authorisation procedure. It ill behoves those who thought that no prior authorisation was necessary to criticise the details of the prior authorisation that we suggested.
It is a mistake to give the review body the initial power of approval, and that must be reconsidered. Chief police officers believe that a central unit for processing applications is desirable, and I understand that, but that would not require the approving judges to act as commissioners. The central unit could use a different panel of judges.
Nobody has explained so far what will happen in Scotland. Is it assumed that one of the commissioners will be a Scottish judge? Is it assumed that there will be a unit in Edinburgh to process applications, or will all Scottish police forces have to apply to London for an authorisation? Scottish police officers are very concerned about those questions.
The procedures set up by the Bill must be capable of being implemented rapidly in emergencies, to avoid recourse to retrospective approval, which is undesirable and is not thought necessary for the powers under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 or the Security

Service Act 1996. The Security Service deals with situations which, in the way that they must be handled, are not dissimilar to those with which the police deal. The Security Service must apply to the Home Secretary for authorisation. If the application is urgent, the Home Secretary has to act urgently. It is a job that he does not delegate to a junior Minister, and if he is out of the country, it is done by another Secretary of State, but it is done urgently, and there is no reason why a judge cannot do that job urgently.
Nobody has so far suggested that it is necessary to bypass the procedure of recourse to the Home Secretary, either for the Security Service or for police use of the interception of communications legislation. They have recourse to the Home Secretary for approval in such cases, and there is not an emergency bypass. The suggestion that this cannot be done in cases where there is an intrusion into a private residence—which must be mounted before the person returns to that residence—does not stand up. Even if it were to prove persuasive to the House, it must be more narrowly defined than "cases of urgency". That is the blandest definition we could have, but it has found approval with both the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Blackburn.
The provisions of the Bill extend to a far wider range of surveillance activities than have been featured in the public debate. These include measures to locate and track vehicles, the surveillance of lock-up warehouses—which may be used to tranship weapons or drugs—and surveillance in a public place. We accept that some of these activities—although they should be reviewed by commissioners—need not require prior authorisation on the same basis as the bugging of a private residence.
Another interesting case is that of the confessional. The Home Secretary looked as if he were about to be drawn into some theological difficulty over this issue, and the status of the assurance he gave was not clear. It was said that the police would not use the powers in relation to what was described as "the seal of the confessional". In the first place, it is not clear how the Home Secretary can give that assurance for every police force which may make applications. Secondly, it is not clear how that will affect other groups which, theologically, do not accept the concept of the confessional and a priest giving absolution, but have similarly confidential discussions between a member of the congregation and the minister—whether it is a Protestant minister, a rabbi or someone else in a similar position.
It is not clear whether the Home Secretary intends that these powers could never be used, even with prior judicial authorisation, although there might be a case for doing so. My mind goes back to a Catholic priest in Ireland, who was found to be involved in gun-running activities. I regard that as an exceptional case, but one that might justify prior authorisation for use of the powers. There is an area of confusion that will have to be sorted out, and the solution cannot depend on one's willingness to accept only a Catholic doctrine of confession. It would be an odd piece of legislation if it were so based.
I do not believe that the deal between the Home Secretary and his Labour shadow, the hon. Member for Blackburn, will do. We must return to the bugging powers on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Allason: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, before the Security Services Act 1989 and, indeed,


since then, any electronic surveillance conducted by the police was not illegal, as he suggested, and that, provided that it was authorised by a chief police officer, it was entirely legal? Secondly, does he accept that any private enterprise bugging—as he describes it—is completely illegal as it is a breach of the wireless and telegraphy legislation? Finally, does he accept that there is a huge difference between the kind of electronic surveillance undertaken by the Security Service, where those involved are intelligence officers, and that used by the police, whose officers are part of a uniformed and disciplined organisation with a direct structure of accountability and discipline?

Mr. Beith: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is trying to argue with his last point, but he is wrong if he assumes that all surveillance and eavesdropping activities—or even interception activities—are legal. The law is far from complete on this point. The Home Secretary conceded that, in the controversial case of Alison Halford—the former assistant chief constable of Merseyside—the chief constable intercepted communications on a telephone in the assistant chief constable's office, but was not acting illegally and did not require authorisation when he did so.

Mr. Budgen: Does the right hon. Gentleman concede that the bugging done in the past by the police was not illegal? The police have, very honourably, come to the Government and said that they think that what they are doing could be subject to criticism in the future, and that they would like a proper statutory framework for those activities. Is it not most unfortunate that the Government are not giving the police the opportunity to have this matter fully debated on the Floor of the House? There have been doubts about the police's behaviour in the past—in the west midlands, for instance, where the serious crime squad had to be disbanded. Would it not be better to have a more public debate on the details, which have so engaged the interest of the House, on the Floor? Is it not inevitably unfair to everybody concerned to have the debate tucked away in Committee?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman believes in the merit of repetition, as I have already answered his last question in the affirmative. However, it must be said that the police were in danger of facing criminal charges, and certainly actions for civil trespass, for some of the actions that they might have had to take in carrying out those duties. It is true that they have been among those seeking a proper statutory basis, and it is right that the Home Secretary has responded to that—although it would have been better to do so when we were dealing with the Security Service legislation.
Another major issue in the Bill that has not received sufficient public attention because of the concentration on the bugging issue is the criminal conviction certificates. We accept the case for special certificates which will be required for special categories of work—especially work with vulnerable people such as children, where the enhanced criminal record certificate will apply. There will have to be safeguards, as situations could arise in which someone who is wrongly listed is blackballed from work because of an error. We have all seen constituency cases of mistakes made by the Child Support Agency, and if that were to be transported to this sector, it would have catastrophic consequences.
We are concerned about the Government's attitude to the Lords amendment relating to charities. It will not do to take the power to remit the costs and do nothing about it, as that would raise entirely false expectations. The Government are imposing a large burden on charities, voluntary organisations and those who work for them. A former Speaker of this House took up that cause in another place, with widespread support, and the Government must give a better response.
We have a particular concern about the general criminal conviction certificates which, potentially, will be required for any job anywhere at any time. It is a fundamental change to the position of our citizens if they are to find in future that they will not be able to pursue an application for any job of any description unless they obtain such a certificate. They may have no reason to worry about it, but may still have to pay for the certificate and may not wish to do so. Others may have had criminal convictions in the past which they have put behind them and which are entirely irrelevant to their attempt to obtain employment now.
It is clear that those in a fiduciary position as trustees of charities or directors of companies will increasingly feel that they had better ask for those certificates in case someone should one day take money out of the till and for it to emerge that the company did not ask for certificates, which would have shown previous convictions. The measure will spread and become more general. It will create particular problems in some areas—for example, where an informer has been relocated, perhaps from Northern Ireland, with a new identity. If he goes to seek another job, he must produce a criminal conviction certificate. How will he do that without disclosing precisely the information that he must conceal if he is to be protected? He will have been given that protection because of the service he rendered, enabling the police to track down, arrest and convict other terrorists or dangerous.
My noble Friend Lord Rodgers made a significant point in another place, when he asked why, if everyone else in the country will be required to produce a criminal conviction certificate, Members of Parliament should not have to do so. Why are we prepared to lay on other people a responsibility that we do not accept ourselves? Why should we not have to lodge with the returning officer when we put in our nomination a criminal conviction certificate that is open to inspection by any member of the public? It seems perfectly reasonable that we should do what we expect everyone else to do. If we are prepared to place that responsibility on everyone else in society, we cannot shy away from it ourselves.
My fear, and that of many organisations working for the rehabilitation of offenders, is that we will set back that rehabilitation, especially for those who commit one or two offences at a young age and then go straight. A third of men under 30 have a criminal conviction—I still find that figure astonishing and hard to believe, but it is constantly produced by the most reputable bodies—and they would have that recorded on the certificate. That is a matter for deep concern.
The composition of the authorities that will be responsible for the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad is too heavily weighted towards the Home Office, which will appoint the chairmen of those bodies.
There is also concern about the disciplinary arrangements for police officers seconded to NCIS and the regional crime squads. It is unsatisfactory that, at present, the management of NCIS has no disciplinary responsibility; nobody works for the head of NCIS, as the officers are all seconded and subject to somebody else's discipline. They are disciplined only in their home forces.
The Bill provides for a double discipline procedure: while seconded, the officer will be subject to a separate discipline code that will apply also to non-police officers working for NCIS. When the officer goes back to the home force, he or she will be back in the normal police disciplinary code. The Police Federation understandably has concerns about that; those concerns will have to be addressed. Such matters could be considered upstairs in Committee, but I agree that part III, the bugging part, would be better dealt with on the Floor of the House.
We shall vote for our reasoned amendment tonight. Someone had to take a firm stand. The Labour leadership certainly did not do so until goaded by our amendment and by others. If people do not take firm stands about essential civil liberties, those liberties will be eroded.

Sir Peter Lloyd: I am not persuaded to support the amendment, but the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has once again put very cogently some important points that will have to be considered with the greatest care as the Bill proceeds towards enactment.
I agreed with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said. As he in turn agreed with a great deal of what the Home Secretary said, I am glad to find myself agreeing in considerable measure with my right hon. and learned Friend.
The developments proposed in the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the formation of the police information technology organisation and the National Crime Squad are welcome. I am sure that they will increase the effectiveness of the police in dealing with crime, and especially major organised crime, which requires a national and international response.
There is great scope for improving police strategy and tactics for the solving and preventing of crime. There has been a welcome fall in reported crime, in which the Home Secretary rightly takes pride. The success of Operation Bumblebee is well known, and I am sure that the fall in reported crime owes more to the thorough use of police resources in terms of intelligence and information, the cumulative effect of programmes such as the "Safe City" programme, and the judicious use of closed circuit television, than it does to longer prison sentences—but that is probably another debate.
Intelligence is crucial. That is why the police information technology organisation is vital for collecting, matching and processing relevant data and enabling them to be retrieved efficiently when needed. Serious criminals are using every scientific device and refinement of technology. If the police are to keep ahead, they must do so too. They must be able to collect hard-to-get information if they are to track down the drug barons and godfathers and the other criminals who are skilled in not leaving their fingerprints behind.
Bugging and electronic eavesdropping are, alas, essential. Their use by both police and criminals is bound to increase and to become ever more sophisticated and

more frequent, so we must take extra care that, in our efforts to catch criminals, the traditional liberties and rights of the public are protected—especially their privacy at home and in their place of work.
The police have always had a policy of respecting those traditional liberties and rights, but we nevertheless require them to apply to a judge or a magistrate for a warrant before entering or searching private property, and to get permission from the Home Secretary before tapping a telephone.
It would clearly have been wrong, when putting bugging on a proper statutory footing, for prior authorisation not to be required as it is for the other two procedures. A bug under the dining room table is as intrusive as the telephone being tapped, if not more so. I am glad that the Home Secretary has been persuaded of that. When I first heard that he intended to table a new amendment, I was told that he wanted to require prior authorisation for the bugging of doctors, lawyers and journalists only. That would have been unacceptable. I do not see why the editors of The Sun should have greater protection than their readers or the people about whom they write.
If I understand the Home Secretary correctly, he will require pre-authorisation before anyone can be bugged at home or at work. The Liberal party, in particular, has asked about other places, and I am sure that we should consider such matters in Committee or, if time permits, on the Floor of the House. If I have understood my right hon. and learned Friend correctly, he is to be congratulated. Nobody believes that the police want to misuse their power to bug, but it is best, when they need to intrude clandestinely—immersed as they are in fighting crime—that they are not the judges in their own case. Pre-authorisation is a useful discipline on the police and a necessary safeguard for the individual citizen.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: When the police gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in our inquiry into organised crime, it was—

Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I apologise, Madam Speaker. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would allow me to draw to his attention the fact—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Now you have stepped over the line."] I am sorry, Madam Speaker, that I have put a foot wrong. It is the first time that I have put a foot wrong in 23 years.
The police suggested to the Select Committee that their bugging powers should be put on a proper statutory basis; the suggestion came from them.

Sir Peter Lloyd: Yes, I am quite sure that it did, although I am not so sure that they pressed hard for pre-authorisation. However, I am certain that thoughtful police officers will agree that there is much benefit in it for themselves: it is a protection for them as well as for the public.
As I was saying to the right hon. Member for Berwickupon-Tweed, I am sure that, as the Bill proceeds, we shall need to consider carefully how the new arrangements will work, and how to make sure that the safeguards are as strong and as comprehensive as they should be.
I am concerned that charities, especially those that serve vulnerable people such as children and the elderly, will be heavily penalised if the amendment made in the House of Lords is overturned as the Home Secretary suggested. At present, such organisations can have the necessary checks carried out at no cost, but if that amendment is deleted they will have to find a large sum out of limited budgets, or charge their volunteers. It would be possible for a number of volunteers to pay. Many may do so, but a lot will be deterred, and quite a number—particularly the unemployed and other people on limited incomes, whom one wants to encourage—will find it difficult, if not impossible.
I hope that that matter will be reconsidered, despite what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said. I do not like putting extra costs on the Treasury. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why I am on the Conservative side of the House. A surcharge on certificates provided at the request of businesses or public sector organisations could bridge the gap, perhaps. I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend appeared to reject any change here and now. Simply to excise the Lord's amendment is not the right answer.
On crime checks generally, I would register but not develop the concern that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) so cogently expressed. I hope that we are not developing into a society in which we all as a matter of course have to have a crime check clearance from the police before we can get a job or some other service, or exercise some other right. It is not an attractive prospect, but it might be coming.
As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, perhaps we can turn this Bill into an opportunity to help offenders back into work. As chairman of the only charity I know that runs a job-finding service for ex-prisoners, I wholeheartedly support that hope. A job is the best way to ensure that an ex-prisoner does not become a prisoner again—the best way for him and the best way to protect society. I hope that we can make progress on that suggestion before we return to the Bill on the Floor of the House. It is important that it is looked into. This may be an opportunity to turn what looks like a negative for ex-offenders into a positive.

Mr. Tony Benn: I am opposed to the Bill. I shall vote for the Liberal Democrat amendment and, if there is a Division on Second Reading, I shall go into the No Lobby. I shall tell the House very simply why.
Recently, 51 Members of Parliament signed an early-day motion that I put down, which stated:
That this House wishes to express its grave anxiety about the Police Bill, which contains provisions that would seriously erode traditional civil liberties in Britain; and invites Her Majesty's Government to re-consider this proposed legislation.
It could not have been put more moderately, and there was support from hon. Members from parties other than my own. I am glad that the Liberal Democrat amendment has been tabled. At least that is a guarantee that we shall have a vote.
I have three objections to the Bill. First, the intelligence gathering will be indiscriminate. People must be naive if they imagine that the police will not put on that computer

every bit of information that they can find as a by-product of other investigations and any information that tells them something about solicitors they do not like as they may be working with criminals in other cases—integrating health and medical records and God knows what. If anyone doubts that, they should look at the comprehensive computer system that the Labour party has developed at Millbank, which is known as Excalibur and which has everything ever said by a Conservative Minister in the past 200 years available for immediate recall.
Knowing the police, they will put everything down that they can pick up—much of it inaccurate. Much of the information could easily be inaccurate, particularly if it is kept secret. Also, under clause 2(4)(a), that intelligence service is subject to objectives set down by the Home Secretary, who can tell it what to do. In the world of information gathering anyone must be naive if they think that anything that comes as a by-product of another investigation would immediately be dismissed by the police or that they would say, "Nothing to do with us. We must destroy it at once."
The measure will result in a building up of dossiers. Hon. Members know about the gross inaccuracies in the information held by the Child Support Agency. I know of many cases. Anyone who thinks that one can build up an accurate information service in five minutes without any proper accountability has made a mistake.
My second objection is to the intrusive surveillance—bugging and burgling. The third relates to the criminal certificates, which are cleverly drafted. The Home Secretary did not answer my question. If I want a job, an employer can ask me to produce a certificate, but if an employer offers me a job, I cannot say, "I will not take it unless you give me a criminal conviction certificate." So the measure weighs for capital against Labour, to use the jargon that is now perhaps forgotten but still relevant. Supposing Robert Maxwell had offered me a job and I was unemployed—

Mr. Beith: He offered several people jobs.

Mr. Benn: He did not offer me one, thank God. Let us suppose that I said, "I'd very much like to work with you, Mr. Maxwell. Could you please persuade me that you have not had any convictions?" He would not have had to reply. If I then went back to the job centre and said that I was offered a job but would not take it because he would not prove that he was not a convicted person, would I continue to get my benefit? Of course I would not. So, the provision is grossly unfair and I will return to its other uses.
We have all heard the background to the Bill a million times. We all read the newspapers and watch television. There is terrorism, drug dealing, the Mafia, triads and all the rest. Crime is high-tech and globally organised, but clause 92(5)(a) includes among the people who can be surveyed
conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose".
That has nothing to do with terrorism, drug dealing or crime.

Mr. John Greenway: indicated dissent.

Mr. Benn: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not misunderstand me. I do not know whether he followed


the debate in the House of Lords. I do not usually follow those debates, but I found it much better than I had expected on this issue.
When Jim Callaghan was asked, he said that he never knew about all the intrusions, and when he was given the figures, he said, "Those were industrial disputes." That is what the Bill is about. At the heart of the Bill—all covered up to make it look as if we are going to fight terrorism—is a power that the Government can use against anyone they do not like, so long as two or three are gathered together. That has a biblical significance, which is bringing the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) to his feet.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not know what Mr. Callaghan said, but he was a party to the telephone bugging of my home, and he asked for the reports from the police. He got reports from them on tapes taken from my home, so he knew what was going on.

Mr. Benn: We should not reminisce, but I am coming to my experiences, too. The fact of the matter is that companies are also
a number of people engaged in a common purpose".
Any Home Secretary could arrange for the bugging of any company for any reason. Imagine if a left-wing Government were in power. How would the Conservative party react to powers that we took that allowed us to bug and burgle any company that we thought might be engaged in any conduct that could threaten a particular political interest of ours?
The police could bug and burgle and do all this—with advance judicial permission, if there was time. Everyone knows that, if it was a case of kidnapping, one might ring up the commissioner on the way. That is not the problem. It is the fact that it extends to the large number of people engaged in a common purpose. That is the politics at the heart of what is otherwise a police Bill.
I did not know until I heard the question that some people do not realise that confidential relations between Christian ministers and their flock are not confined to the Catholic Church. The Bill does not say that Christian ministers cannot be bugged—or banisters, journalists, solicitors and doctors. The commissioner would be asked, if there were time. Under what circumstances could it be so urgent to bug a barrister that one did not have time to ring the judge, particularly as the police have to ask the barrister for the information first to qualify for the right to intervene? The thing is absurd and all the information collected will be stored on the National Criminal Intelligence Service computer.
The argument was that that has always been done. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said that, too. I do not need to be told that. I was bugged and burgled as a Cabinet Minister. My son, who was an electronics buff, established that that happened while I was a Cabinet Minister.
My waste sacks were collected every day in a Rover car. I know that Kensington borough council is proud of its services, but I have never heard of someone having his rubbish removed every morning. My son fitted a little bell. We called it the rubbish bell. We used to watch the rubbish go every morning. I wrote to Merlyn Rees, the Home Secretary, asking whether my phone was bugged. I did not get a reply; perhaps he did not get the letter.
I wrote again and, I think, a third time and did not get a reply. Then I went to see Jim Callaghan. He said gruffly, "Why are you asking all these questions?" I said, "I would quite like to know. I am a member of the Cabinet." He said, "I can tell you it is not happening now." He did not say whether it had happened before or might happen again. I have read it all in "Spycatcher". The Government spent millions of pounds trying to stop me reading a book that confirmed what I knew to be true, and then they say that they want more openness.
If things that were done before by administrative action are to be put on a statutory basis, what about a Bill to allow Ministers to lie? That has happened in the House. I can imagine a Ministerial Statements (Amendment) Bill to allow Ministers to lie in the House on the grounds that they have always lied, or at least that some have always lied. It is not a sustainable argument.
In the old days, those who talked about being bugged were described as paranoid; nowadays, people say, "What's new?" Both attitudes are wrong. We should not be regarded as paranoid if we know it is happening, and it should not be regarded as normal because everyone does it. Civil liberties protect our society. Dissent protects our society. We never know which dissenter is going to be right. The Pope put Galileo in prison for heresy because he had the dangerous idea that the universe did not go round the earth. I visited his cell. Until recently, I used to feel worried watching Patrick Moore on television because the Pope had said that that was heresy. Fortunately, the Pope has let Galileo off, although it was a bit late to help him.
Democracy is about the growth of dissent until it can persuade a minority to become a majority. I am not alone. Sometimes when I make such points, I am alone, but feel that I must stick to my guns. However, this time I have Lord Carr, Lord Jenkins, Lord Callaghan and Lord Merlyn-Rees, who are all critics of this Bill. That is four Home Secretaries, none of whom is subject to the electoral temptations of 1 May. That is why they were able to do it. It tells us much about the Front-Bench teams that 1 May looms larger than Sir Edward Coke's famous judgment that
every man's house is his castle".
Those Home Secretaries opposed terrorism, but they did not what know what was going on. Lord Can did not know, nor Merlyn Rees, nor Jim Callaghan; neither does the present Home Secretary; and nor will the future Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), know what the police are doing. Read Peter Wright. He said that he had bugged and burgled his way around London while the people at the top turned their backs.
Let us be realistic. The Bill has been attacked by Lord Rees-Mogg, the Financial Times, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Observer, The Sunday Times, the New York Times. The Evening Standard called it "disgraceful." It has been attacked by Alison Halford, the former deputy chief constable who was bugged by her chief constable when she brought a sex discrimination case; by Peter Carter-Ruck, the Law Society, Liberty and the former Attorney-General, Lord Rawlinson, whom I knew well.
There is also the criminal convictions certificate, which, as I said, can be required by employers but not from them. If I wanted an enhanced certificate, I would have to be


fingerprinted to get one. That is in the Bill. Even if we did have to provide such a certificate to be elected to Parliament, as far as I know, my record is clear. There may be a mistake in the police computer that I cannot explain but if I wanted proof, I would have to be fingerprinted.
If that is not a police state, I should like to know what is. If we really want to deal with all the criminal problems, we should tattoo everyone with a national number and put an electronic device under their skin. Then we will know where everyone is all the time and there will not be any problems. Leaving aside the politics, there is a conflict between fighting crime and maintaining civil liberties.
We will create a new underclass of unemployable people with convictions. One third of men under 35 have convictions. A third of women in prison are there for non-payment of television licences. I have never forgotten a case that I had when I represented Bristol. A woman came to see me in a terrible state. Her husband had died, she was 55 and she had applied for a job in a supermarket. The security officer asked whether she had any convictions. She said no. He was an ex-policeman, and he rang the police, who told him that she had been picked up for something when she was 15. He confronted her with that 40-year-old offence. She had a nervous breakdown. I got a letter of apology from the chief constable in Bristol and from the Home Secretary. If we open such prospects, we will create unemployable people whose only chance of rehabilitation would have been finding other work.
This is not a left-right issue. Interestingly, it divides the Executive, both present and future, from the legislature. I appeal across the Floor to people who might not otherwise agree with my views. This is a Bill that Brezhnev operated. No doubt Milosevic finds it useful in Belgrade. Probably the Albanians will try to copy it in view of their difficulties with pyramid selling. It is not a Bill that a serious democratic Parliament should pass.
Where is the demand for the Bill? Does middle England want it? Has a middle-class focus group made up of banisters, lawyers and priests said, "We must be bugged more often to safeguard us from terrorism." Of course not. The Bill comes from those who want more power over the people of Britain. Libertarians should resist it. It is part of a pattern. I do not want to go back over all the legislation, but, over the years, we have lost many of our liberties.
I went down to Dover to support the animal rights people. There was an argument between a policeman and one demonstrator in an empty street. I went over asked the constable what was wrong. He said, "That man is standing in a part of this town I have not designated for protest." I asked whether a member for Kent constabulary could designate any part of Kent. He said, "Yes, I can." I asked what the problem was. He said that the street could not be blocked. I said that it was a huge street and that no one was there. He went to have a word with an inspector. Do not think that we are not losing our civil liberties. We are transferring the protection of our rights from Parliament to the police.
I mention Europe because, without reopening the difficult question of the single currency, everyone knows that we have a developing relationship on terrorism and

crime with European Governments. They will want access and we will give it to them from everything that we have on our computers. It is happening already. If a German comes to Britain to work and the employer asks for a criminal conviction certificate, he will say, "We do not have them in Germany." What will happen then to the level playing field? The whole thing will be handed to European control.
Every society requires a huge amount of consent to survive, and an element of coercion. There are criminal classes and people who have to be coerced. The Bill reflects a deep anxiety in the British establishment about the future. When you were elected, Madam Speaker, I said that I thought that there would be social unrest in the years ahead. I was interrupted for saying it, but I believe it.
The Bill is an instrument for getting greater coercive powers over people. I hope that the House will reject it as do people of all political opinions. I would be a libertarian with those among Conservative Members if they would only drop the economic nonsense. On true libertarianism—protecting people from having their lives controlled by others—I would be with them. I hope that the House will not accept the Bill.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: In a moment of unusual ecumenism, I hope that I will be forgiven for not commenting adversely on the unreality of the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). He is my pair and no one could admire him more than I, or be more grateful for all that he has done for the House. Hon. Members should also be grateful for his sparing them from having to listen to more speeches from me than they might otherwise have to hear, and he should be rewarded for that. However, I hope that he will forgive me for taking a little less than seriously his condemnation of the police for surreptitiously recording and disseminating private conversations. Many of us are beginning to develop a long section in our library dedicated to his privately recorded and disseminated conversations, which are immensely amusing—long may they continue.

Mr. Benn: I dictate my diary and I record my speeches, but I am not a bugger and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will acquit me of that, lest it go on my criminal record.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: No one could possibly accuse the right hon. Gentleman of doing anything so uncouth, because he is the epitome of charm and decency.
In another brief moment of ecumenicalism, I should like to say how much I enjoyed the comments of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) about the absurdity of the Liberal Democrats' proposals for the amendment of the Bill. I shall not add to the embarrassment of another right hon. Member for whom I have the utmost regard, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), by attacking his attempt to justify the ridiculous. He was probably embarrassed enough by having to put forward the arguments in his speech. The Liberal Democrats will learn what the rest of the House thinks of their proposals when we go through the Lobbies later tonight.
There, I am afraid, my ecumenism must end. The hon. Member for Blackburn began his speech by mentioning that recorded crime had more than doubled, which is true.
He might have added that that has happened practically everywhere in the western world during the same period. He might also have said that recorded crime will inevitably rise in a prosperous society where nearly everyone now has a telephone and can quickly communicate with the police; where most people now possess cars, which never used to be the case; where houses are now empty for so much longer as more and more families go out to work and are therefore more available for easy pickings by burglars; and where one cannot make a claim against an insurance policy unless the matter has first been reported to the police, which is a more recent development. Finally, as a result of the response to victims and the increasing concern for them that the criminal justice system has shown in recent years, more and more women who are the subject of violence in their houses are reporting those incidents to the police. Those factors explain a fair amount of the increase in recorded crime.
In addition, the hon. Gentleman did not say, although he might have been expected to do so, that, notwithstanding all that, the Government have reduced crime by 10 per cent. over the past three years, which is the largest, fastest and longest reduction in crime since records started to be kept in the middle of the 19th century. It would have been fairer of him had he reminded his viewers and listeners of that, but perhaps it would have been too difficult for him to draw attention to the Government's success so close to a general election.
I was also interested in the exchange between my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Blackburn on the subject of the surrender of power by a possible—albeit unlikely—Labour Government. The Government have always considered impregnable the third pillar issues of justice and home affairs, which are specifically exempted from Maastricht and over which we have the complete veto—they are not even within the competence of the European Community.
The right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was reported in the Financial Times of 29 January as saying:
He hints at a concession, however, by suggesting that some justice and home affairs issues, such as police co-operation (but definitely not frontier or domestic criminal law) might be 'unbundled' and 'partially communitised', allowing the European parliament and court of justice to have a say in them.

Mr. Michael: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I shall just finish my point and then it might be easier for the hon. Gentleman to respond.
If an injustice was done earlier by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—who no doubt wishes to cause no injustice—and if an injustice was done by that newspaper to new Labour, may I ask whether that quotation has ever been denied?

Mr. Michael: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman should have listened to the comments of my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), in which he made the position absolutely clear. Instead of posing questions, will he respond to this point? He read out certain elements as if they were quotations; will he acknowledge that they are not direct quotations from my right hon. Friend the

Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the shadow Foreign Secretary, but quotations from an article by a Financial Times journalist?
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman also acknowledge that the article makes it absolutely clear—I think that he dropped his voice when he came to this point—that there is definitely no suggestion whatsoever regarding frontier control or domestic criminal law? The words in the article are:
definitely not frontier control or domestic criminal law".
That is clear in the article, which shows on what tenuous grounds the Home Secretary made his inaccurate and insubstantial claims earlier today. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am not sure how tenuous it is. The words "unbundled" and "partially communitised" are in quotations. The authors are none other than Edward Mortimer and John Kampfner—the first of whom is held in the highest regard, although I cannot claim to know the other gentleman—so one can assume that the reporting is pretty accurate. Whether or not it is accurate, my question is whether there has ever been—until today—a denial. If there has been no denial until today, is not that another example of the wholly disreputable behaviour of the Labour party, whose members tend to say things in private and then deny them when they are made public? As a result, they are all things to all people in the run-up to a general election, which I consider to be an abuse of proper behaviour.

Mr. Michael: It is for you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to decide whether that is abuse of this House. The hon. and learned Gentleman is twisting words in order to try to justify the Home Secretary's earlier remarks when it is clear that the Home Secretary's remarks cannot be justified. Journalists are responsible for the articles they write. There are inverted commas around individual words and phrases, but the article does not make it clear whether they are quotations from anyone or whether they are simply the use of inverted commas by the journalists in regard to specific terms.
It is outrageous for the hon. and learned Gentleman to take his brief from Tory central office in order to try to twist words and throw around accusations and misrepresentations, which are the only actions left to his discredited party in the run-up to the general election. Even in the article, it is absolutely clear that there is definitely no suggestion of any relaxation on the part of the Labour party in regard to frontier control—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Hon. Members know that interventions should, by their nature, be short. I should be grateful if we could now consider the contents of the Bill.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: May I say that I have never seen a hole deeper than the one into which the hon. Gentleman has dug himself? However, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall return to the contents of the Bill.
The bugging issue apart, I should have thought that the Bill's objectives would—and I believe that they do—command the enthusiastic support of all to whom the protection of British citizens from criminals is more important than party political point scoring. The Bill is further evidence of the Government's absolute


determination to reduce crime. It achieves that aim by building up our defences against organised serious and international crime through better co-ordination of our crime defence forces and the weaponry that they deploy.
The Bill takes the Security Service Act 1996 a stage further by ensuring that the National Criminal Intelligence Service backs police operations more effectively, and that must be a good thing. It creates a National Crime Squad, which will more effectively co-ordinate a national response to the serious and, unfortunately, growing problem of national and international crime and that is a good thing. It improves the delivery of information technology to police forces through the police information technology organisation and that must be a good thing.
Finally, through the setting up of the criminal records agency, it helps to reduce the likelihood of serious offenders getting jobs in areas where they might be tempted to carry on offending and that, too, must be a good thing. In all those matters, the improvement of the weaponry with which we are able to counter-attack and to defend against serious crime can only be wholeheartedly welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I believe by the country.
Perhaps I might be permitted to add a thank you to the Government for responding so positively to at least four, and possibly 10, of the recommendations that the Home Affairs Select Committee made when we reported on organised crime 18 months ago, and to other recommendations in our report on the private security industry, regarding the criminal records provisions of the Bill. It is always good to record that this cross-party Committee and the witnesses who gave evidence to it are listened to by the Government, and that our recommendations are acted on. It makes our efforts worth while and shows how effective some of the newer democratic institutions of this parliamentary system can be.
Then there is the matter of intrusive surveillance or bugging. That this measure, even in its earlier form, was a distinct improvement on what preceded it cannot be denied. Until that time, intrusive surveillance or bugging was unlawful, or at any rate not lawful, and no doubt many actions were brought against police forces for trespass—because it is hardly burglary—when premises were invaded and no criminal prosecution resulted or succeeded. No doubt settlements were made out of court, costing the taxpayer a lot of money. Any reference to authority was to a chief constable, which is not quite the same thing as to an independent person.
I would merely add, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), that not only did the police ask for the practice to be made statutory, they actually suggested to the Home Affairs Select Committee that judges should be brought in to approve.

Sir Peter Lloyd: Good for them.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Very good for them.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary knows, many Conservative Members were unhappy about the way in which the Bill was originally drafted. One does not have to be an anti-establishment, police-bashing anarchist to care about the principle that

an Englishman's home is his castle and should be treated as such by the forces of the state as far as is reasonably possible; and one does not have to be a criminal or a troublemaker, or paranoid, to be concerned about the incursion of the Executive into the liberties of the citizen.
In fact, one reason why we are elected to this place is to protect our constituents as citizens from the abuse of power by the Executive, and that includes its agents—the police and other potentially intrusive forces. That is not to say that we do not understand that, in this modern world, there is a proper place for intrusive surveillance or bugging.
Much modern policing depends on good intelligence, and that means information about crime, which must be obtained, if necessary, by the invasion of privacy of suspected offenders. Nearly all thwartings of drug and terrorist crimes in recent years have come about as a result of information and intelligence, often obtained by bugging.
In a letter to Baroness Blatch dated 16 January, the immediate past president of the Association of Chief Police Officers gave an example. He said:
During a complex, life threatening and fast moving operation, against persons suspected of kidnapping and conspiring to murder individuals for political purposes, an entry was effected into premises and technical surveillance deployed. As a consequence police were able to monitor developments resulting in the apprehension of the perpetrators as they made their way to carry out their attack. In this case the time-scale involved in this critical part of the operation did not exceed 12 hours in total.
A report in The Times today, although not directly on the same point, emphasises how important bugging now is:
The police case against David Howells hung by the vital thread of secret tape-recordings of his conversations with his two boys while they were held in police cells.
Howells had a cast-iron alibi that he was miles from the murder scene, playing in a darts match. But tapes of conversations with his sons confirmed detectives' suspicions of his complicity in a cover-up, if not in the murder itself.
Obviously, a balance must be struck between the liberties of decent, law-abiding members of society, who have a right to be protected against criminals, and the liberties of suspected offenders who may or may not be innocent. Many of us—not only their Lordships in another place or some Opposition Members, but Conservative Members—were of the view that that balance was not being struck. Prior authorisation of intrusion into private property and the protection of privileged meetings between suspects and their lawyers, their doctors and even journalists, would correct that imbalance. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for listening to us and introducing those protections into the Bill.
As a result—I control myself enough not to make party political hay while the sun is out—the Bill has the support of the main Opposition party and will, I hope, move speedily to the statute book. My right hon. and learned Friend's explanation of the need for the chiefs of police, who know best about these things, to have responsibility for authorising such operations, makes good sense to me, as do his proposals for high court judges to be commissioners, for a right to appeal to a chief commissioner and for commissioners to serve for a limited period.
Although the challenges to the legislation before us are now at a much lower level of importance than they were a few days ago—and at a much lower decibel level—it is


obvious that, as the Bill passes through Committee, very many issues will need to be clarified or reconsidered. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for saying earlier that he is already considering amending the code of practice in response to tonight's debate.
I shall briefly mention some of those issues. First, there is anxiety that, although one of the tests for bugging is that the crime should be serious
conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose",
in clause 91 may not be serious and might be used to stop processions or to stop offences being committed under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 which are hardly very serious. That has been mentioned by several hon. Members on both sides of the House. Perhaps we should consider the substitution of the word "and" at page 35, line 39, for "or", which might satisfy that concern without weakening the Bill unreasonably.
Secondly, the Bar and Law Society are worried that the privileged communications between lawyers and their clients might still be restricted to some extent, although to a lesser extent, by the new provisions. There must be a balance, but perhaps we could consider that further. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary gave us an assurance about the confessional; we might have a similar assurance, perhaps written into the code of practice, concerning the interference with the complete privacy, which simply must exist, between a lawyer and his client. It will not do for anyone to overhear the client speaking to his lawyer about his defence, because then the information could be used in an unfair way at the criminal trial, and injustice may be done.
Thirdly, there is concern about what is meant by the words "an urgent case" on page 35 of the Bill. That would exempt bugging from the limitation of prior authorisation. Obviously, it would be absurd to lose the tracking of a criminal car as a result of the need for prior authorisation, and I believe that the passage that I have read out from Mr. Jim Sharples is evidence of that. However, there are understandable calls for some clarification, if that should be possible, of the scope of that exemption. I hope that we may consider the possibility of dealing with it in the code as the Bill passes through Committee.
Fourthly, there is some anxiety, which has been expressed during the debate, about the waiving of a fee to applicants who are volunteers in scouting or other activities. My right hon. and learned Friend may have a little difficulty in removing the amendment that was introduced in the House of Lords. I must confess that, in its recommendation No. 6 on access to criminal records, the Home Affairs Committee said that the agency should be self-financing. The point is worthy of further consideration, however it may be resolved.
Fifthly, it is obvious that the provisions are complicated. A code of practice will be necessary. The provision in clause 112 that there may be such a code is insufficient. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider substituting "shall be" for "may be"? We will all need such guidance.
Sixthly, the Bill does not envisage transcripts obtained from bugging being used evidentially, only for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime. The House of Lords case of R v. Preston, in which I was a party, reaffirmed that the same applies to transcripts of telephone

intercepts under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The time may soon come when it will be difficult to justify the fact that conversations that are recorded can be used to prevent and detect crime, but cannot be used as evidence in a case. We should consider changing the law so that intercepts of communications or bugs yield up evidence of the crime, to help towards the conviction of the serious criminal.
There is a problem relating to disclosure of the sources, but we have been over that in recent legislation, so the problem may have been reasonably well resolved.
Other issues arise, but I shall not burden the House further. They will be raised in Committee. The calls to have the matter debated on the Floor of the House are, in the present circumstances, somewhat unrealistic. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), for whom I have the highest regard, can serve on that Committee and improve the Bill with his contributions. The Committee meets in public and is recorded.
If we bear in mind the load of important business that still has to be taken on the Floor of the House while this Parliament lasts, and the short time that we will have left to deal with it, by any stretch of our imagination, it would be unrealistic to bring the Bill on to the Floor at the Committee stage, particularly as it will be brought back to the Chamber on Report. We do not want to lose the Bill under any circumstances, so I back the Government on that decision.
This is a good Bill, and a highly desirable one. Now that the major objection to it has been removed, I hope that the House will give the Bill its full support tonight and a speedy passage on to the statute book.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) gave a considered speech. I acknowledge his honourable role as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. I agree with some aspects of his speech—for example, the need for lawyers to have privacy in discussions with their clients, and the need to achieve a proper balance between civil liberties and effective policing. However, I do not agree with his conclusion and his final remarks that this is a good Bill. I think that it is a bad Bill; to use kind language, I find it unwise in several parts, and objectionable in other aspects.
Three aspects of the Bill concern me: the arrangements for setting up and enhancing the National Criminal Intelligence Service; the bugging and burglary powers; and the criminal conviction certificates.
First, whatever the Home Secretary says, we are moving ever closer towards a Federal Bureau of Investigation—a national police service. It will have a national intelligence network and, if it is not so already, it will come to be a political force in the land. The Bill helps that process along, and it is going along without a murmur. It should not be allowed to proceed without dissent.

Mr. Michael: I understand the fears that my hon. Friend expresses. I point out that a National Criminal Intelligence Service exists. There is no accountability for it, other than nominally to the Home Office. The Bill


provides for accountability to representatives of local police authorities and local police forces. There have long been calls for such accountability.

Mr. Cohen: I accept that, but the Bill provides for an enhancement of the powers of NCIS, as I described. That causes me concern, which I want to place on record.
Liberty has sent hon. Members a briefing on that aspect. It refers to the fact that, in 1990, the Home Affairs Committee heard evidence from several agencies that the criminal records provided to the courts and other agencies were inaccurate, incomplete or out of date, or contained extraneous or prejudicial material. Liberty states:
The risks of inaccuracies and errors must only increase where the information concerned amounts to intelligence information, rather than criminal records.
It points out that the powers of the Data Protection Registrar are weak. There are no controls in the Bill on the quality or the content of the information that is to be kept on NCIS computers.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will my hon. Friend accept, first, that I served on the Home Affairs Committee in 1990, and secondly, that Liberty seems to be slightly mistaken? We decided that, for criminal records, a national standardisation process would be a good thing. The question of enhancing intelligence data in terms of criminal records was never considered, and indeed was opposed.

Mr. Cohen: Intelligence data are going on to the NCIS computer by stealth. I quoted Liberty's point about the inaccuracies and inconsistencies that are increasingly finding their way on to the computer system.
Liberty also points out that there is unauthorised informal disclosure of information by serving police officers to third parties. There have been cases in which the law in that respect has been ineffective, and the cases have subsequently been quashed on appeal by the police officers. There is no effective law to stop the misuse of computer data.
Liberty concludes that without proper controls—safeguards for individuals and accountability
the risk of injustice to innocent people is high, and those risks increase where it is a national body which gathers and retains such information. There is a balance to be maintained between the important duties of the police in preventing and detecting crime and to provide safeguards to ensure that the state does not hold inaccurate information about innocent people, which may have severe consequences for them.
In enhancing the powers of NCIS in the Bill, the Government have not even considered that balance.
The second aspect of the Bill, which has justifiably concerned the House most, relates to the bugging and burglary powers. The case of Entick v. Carrington in 1765 enshrined the constitutional principle that the Englishman's home is his castle and cannot be invaded for reasons of state necessity by any state power without a prior warrant from a judge. Law Lords in another place described that as a constitutional principle, and it has been confirmed that the Bill will violate it.
Hon. Members will have received a booklet called "A law too far" by K. D. Ewing and C. A. Gearty of the civil liberties research unit of King's college, London. They quote the three reasons given in that 1765 judgment by Lord Camden and say:

The intrusion into the individual's property was 'executed against the party, before he was heard or even summoned; and the information as well as the informers were unknown'. Secondly, Lord Camden drew attention to the vagueness of the procedures accompanying the execution of the power, with the search taking place 'in the presence or the absence of the party, as the messengers shall think fit, and without a witness to testify what passes at the time of the transaction'. And thirdly, Lord Camden was concerned that the innocent person was 'as destitute of remedy as the guilty: and the whole transaction … so guarded against discovery that if the officer should be disposed to carry of a bank-bill"'—
which means put down a bank bill—
'he may do it with impunity, since there is no man capable of proving either the taker or the thing taken'.
The language of 1765 might be elaborate, but those two authors say that the reasons given by Lord Camden are as relevant today as they were in 1765.
There should be a principle in relation to Lord Camden's judgment. First, the power to interfere with private property should apply only to serious arrestable offences as defined by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Secondly, there should be prior approval by a judge, preferably a county court judge, who should be required to be satisfied that the degree of intrusion into the privacy of those affected by the surveillance is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. A circuit judge should always be required to give approval before burglary or bugging of a private home takes place. Thirdly, the Bill should contain a constraint to safeguard professionals, such as solicitors and banisters to whom the hon. and learned Member for Burton referred, as well as doctors, journalists and priests.
I am concerned about the Bill's provisions relating to commissioners. I note that just one commissioner was envisaged, but that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said that he was pleased to have tabled an amendment to increase the number to three. If it is argued that prior approval could not be obtained because a matter is urgent, a rota of judges would clearly be more appropriate than just three commissioners.

Mr. Michael: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again, and I am grateful to him for giving way, but he has not understood the argument. The amendment in the House of Lords, which was accepted by the Government, allowed for a minimum of three judges. Such a mechanism allows for the number required. They would be High Court judges, and therefore a higher level of scrutiny would occur than if circuit judges undertook that scrutiny, as my hon. Friend suggests. That would not be as great a protection of civil liberties as the mechanism that is now proposed.

Mr. Cohen: I still have problems with the commissioners' role. A minimum of three means that there could be only three, which would not address the issue of urgency raised by the shadow Home Secretary earlier.
The commissioners were first established to hear complaints. They have a highly restricted remit to uphold complaints. Surveillance and covert searches are likely to be authorised if a chief constable thinks that they are necessary; they would then be approved by one of the commissioners. However, it would be difficult for the commissioner to uphold a complaint unless it was extraordinarily perverse. It is therefore unlikely that complaints would be upheld.
The commissioners do not have to give a reason for rejecting a complaint. Even more seriously, their decision cannot be appealed against or even questioned in court, so a complainant could not take the matter further. Like the commissioners who oversee the security services legislation, their role in relation to complaints will be tokenist. In the security services, not a single complaint has been upheld to my knowledge and the same would be the case with those commissioners, who will now have a prior consent function. Although it is said that they are likely to be senior judges, that will not necessarily be so, and, over time, that criterion might be diminished and a loophole might arise.
Exceptions would be made for very urgent cases, which is another loophole which might be widened over time. My real objection to the commissioners' role is that they will be the authorisers in the first instance and the appeal system in the second. They may even have given prior approval to bug and burgle in the first place. That is an unacceptable confusion of roles, and is wrong.
The term "serious crime" is extremely broadly defined. That definition gives the authority to bug and burgle. The Law Society, among others, has sent a briefing note to hon. Members saying that the term should be much more narrowly defined. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, the provision includes conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose. It will be aimed at demonstrators, those involved in industrial relations and other protesters. It is a catch-all which would take in peaceful protestors as well. It would give the authority to bug and burgle thousands of potential "Swampies" just because a police chief thinks that they are potential criminals. Such protestors should not be automatically regarded as likely criminals, let alone have their home, their parents' home and their friends' homes subjected to bugging and burglary, which could happen under the Bill.
The Home Secretary confirmed that surveillance and bugging have been going on for a long time, and the Bill is needed to legalise it. That casts light on the dubious legality that has been occurring. It amounts to an interesting confession of unlawfulness. For consistency, I suggest that a criminal conviction certificate should be issued on the Home Secretary and the Government before the election, because they have acted unlawfully and have a long criminal record in that respect.
My third point is about criminal conviction certificates, which will be operated by the new quango, the criminal records agency. I oppose imposing a fee of, say, a tenner, particularly on a long-term unemployed person. We do not know how frequently people will have to update their CCC—it will probably be at the mere whim of their employer. A similar cost applies to volunteers who work for worthy organisations, and perhaps to those organisations themselves. Therefore, there is a severe problem with fees.
Hon. Members will have received a brief from the Trades Union Congress about employee criminal records. It says that there are cases
where employers should not only have every right to check a prospective employee's criminal record, but ought to be under a duty to do so"—
for example, those who work with children.
The TUC also says:
a positive case should be made for employee checks on a case by case basis",
otherwise it can amount to an unwarranted intrusion into a person's privacy and lead to higher crime rates.
In a passage about increasing crime, the TUC says that general checks
would be likely to create a class of permanently unemployable people, many of whom have only offended once, and would be unlikely to do so again if they had steady employment.
It continues:
Particularly for younger offenders these
measures
make it extremely difficult for them to 'go straight' through entry into the world of work … If they cannot get employment as a result of their conviction, they are far more likely to re-offend. Four out of five people supervised by the probation service were unemployed when convicted.
The TUC argues that Parliament should have another look at the section about CCCs. It says:
Drawing the balance between the need to protect the public, the civil liberties of job applicants and the dangers of creating a permanently unemployable criminal underclass is not an easy matter. But we believe that Section V as it is currently drawn does not get that balance right.
Those are very relevant representations by a body that is expert in this field, and its remarks were confirmed by the Home Office's consultation paper "Disclosure of Criminal Records for Employment Vetting Purposes", published in September 1993, which said, as confirmed in a recent parliamentary answer to me:
35 per cent. of men and 8 per cent. of women will have a criminal record of some sort by the age of 35".
It is they who will suffer and become part of the criminal underclass.
Paragraph 48 of the 1993 consultation paper said:
The argument for a closed record is essentially to do with rehabilitation. Those who have a criminal record need to be given a chance to reform and live it down. An open conviction record would make this more difficult, and in particular would reduce ex-offenders' chance of getting work.
Somewhere between the 1993 Home Office paper and the Bill, the Government changed their mind, but the arguments are still very relevant.
The Bill is a bad measure. Just before a general election, we often have ill-thought-out legislation, even if it is well intentioned. The Child Support Agency is an example of that; the Police Bill is another. However, because important civil liberties are at stake, I hope that the Bill fails as a result of an election being called; more sane consideration could then be given to the balance between civil liberties and essential policing work without the election pressures that are felt by Front Benchers, and civil liberties would be more protected.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, I intend to vote for the Liberal Democrat amendment. There are few matters on which I agree with the Liberal Democrats, but on this occasion I will vote with them and against the Bill.

Mr. John Greenway: The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) concentrated, as have other hon. Members, on the civil liberties aspect of the Bill. Indeed,


the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) referred to "lost liberty". We really should put the other point of view.
The freedom of our citizens is being undermined not by some conspiracy at the heart of government or the institutions that uphold authority in this country but by terrorists, whose acts of barbarism maim and kill innocent people, close off streets and town centres and cause massive inconvenience to large sections of the population, including the House; by drug traffickers, who prey on our young people and destroy their lives and their future prospects; and by organised criminals who, through theft and fraud on a grand scale that makes the great train robbery look like a minor crime, are ruining and destroying the financial security and prosperity of businesses and individuals alike.
I say that because I believe that the House has to make up its mind. Are we serious about reducing crime and making this country safer for our citizens and unattractive for criminals? The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made a point that I wanted to make about the policing arrangements that we need in order to achieve that objective. He said that we are not living in the era of "Dixon of Dock Green". Communities throughout the length and breadth of Britain face ruthless, determined and evil men who care nothing for the interests and property of others. That is the background against which we have to consider the measures in the Bill.
It is always rewarding to see recommendations from Select Committee inquiries in which a great deal of time and effort has been invested coming to fruition in Government action and legislative proposals. I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) is not in his place, because he referred to the Home Affairs Select Committee report on organised crime. You will know from personal experience, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Home Affairs Committee has an exemplary record, and many of its recommendations relating to criminal justice, the police and fighting crime have found their way on to the statute book or have been implemented in other ways.
The first three parts of the Bill refer to matters that were considered by the Committee and very closely follow our recommendations. In our report, we concluded that, although the extent of organised crime in the United Kingdom is not so great as in some other western democracies, the threat is nevertheless very real and, increasingly, criminal gangs are international in their organisation and are resourced to an unprecedented extent, very often because of their association with drug trafficking.
The Committee recognised, as does the House generally, that there is a need for greater action at national level to co-ordinate intelligence gathering and the efforts of regional crime squads in dealing with crime, which frequently extends way beyond police boundaries. In my own force area in North Yorkshire, where before coming to the House I was vice-chairman of the police authority, more and more serious crime is committed not by local villains but by gangs from Teesside—I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—from the north-east, from West Yorkshire, Humberside, the west midlands, Greater Manchester and occasionally even the south-east of England.
North Yorkshire police have had considerable success in endeavouring to counter this threat, but increasingly they face huge logistical difficulties. I came to the view some time ago that the sharing of intelligence and the co-ordination of activity between crime squads on a national scale is essential to achieve better results. Those are the key objectives of parts I and II of the Bill.
I will now deal with the new national structure for the National Criminal Intelligence Service. In both the gathering of criminal intelligence at the domestic level and as the focal point for effective contact with overseas law enforcement agencies, NCIS has a crucial role to play in the fight against organised crime, but it needs greater freedom of action and freedom to manage its affairs.
The Select Committee was also told that on occasions it was important for NCIS to undertake what might be described as operational activities, which could involve surveillance beyond mere intelligence gathering. Despite misgivings in some quarters about accountability, NCIS must be allowed the opportunity to ensure that its intelligence gathering is not frustrated by an inability to follow up leads and inquiries when gathering important information about criminal activity. Provision for that is one of the Bill's essential features.
I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton is now present, so that I can pay tribute to his work as Chairman of the Select Committee, which produced a tremendous report on organised crime. The evidence that we received confirmed that regional crime squads were an essential part of the policing system in the fight against crime. They have been reduced from nine to six in recent years. There was and remains an imbalance in their resourcing and effectiveness, because the funding of each squad is set by the police authority, which wants to contribute the least amount of money.
The former national co-ordinator of regional crime squads and the then director general of NCIS strongly recommended the creation of a National Crime Squad under the control of a national director. That would allow a more co-ordinated and effective use of resources, which reflected the fact that criminals do not limit their activity to one region.
Similarly, as regional forces concentrate on their local problems, full advantage has not always been taken of information provided by NCIS, which by its nature is often on a national and international scale. For some time there has been a pressing need for the response to serious and organised crime to be sharpened and made more effective. That requires a more co-ordinated national structure—a National Crime Squad.
The funding arrangements for NCIS and the National Crime Squad are unnecessarily complicated. I am aware of the well rehearsed arguments in favour of levies as opposed to top slicing. However, in my view those two new organisations are so important that they should be funded centrally.
Doubtless my right hon. Friend the Minister will seek to persuade me that neither the levy nor the charging system will be unnecessarily bureaucratic. I rather think, however, that that is precisely how it will turn out. Recommendations were made some time ago—you will recall them, Madam Deputy Speaker—on the Forensic Science Service. We were persuaded to recommend a charging structure. It has taken a long time for that to bed


down, and even now some of us are not entirely sure that forensic science is being used as often as it should be, because police forces are charged for the service.
The two new national bodies will be at the forefront of the fight against crime. We should be totally assured that they will have the resources they need to maximise their operational effectiveness. I think that the Home Secretary of the day is best placed to ensure that that happens, although I acknowledge that it will weaken the input on funding decisions from local authorities and police committees, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has been at pains to ensure is enshrined in the arrangements that he outlined.
The Police Federation is anxious that officers deployed in NCIS or the National Crime Squad will not be covered by police regulations but by new arrangements outlined in the Bill. The federation has expressed concern that the recently revised discipline procedures for the police service should apply nationally, including to these two national police organisations. Officers should also have the right to representation at complaints and disciplinary hearings.
That is important, especially for officers in the National Crime Squad, who will be serving at the sharp end of the police service. They will have to deal with some of the most ruthless, nasty and dangerous criminals in the country, who are not slow to make malicious and mischievous complaints against officers. It is crucial that those officers have the comfort of knowing that the disciplinary arrangements are the same as in their own domestic forces. If there is any reason to believe—as the Police Federation clearly does—that the proposed arrangements do not provide that comfort, that must be rectified either in Committee or on Report. That is an extremely important matter.
Part III of the Bill has proved to be by far the most controversial. It attempts to provide a regulatory framework for the use of intrusive surveillance. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) referred to the fact that that was a recommendation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton said, the police asked for the use of surveillance to be regulated, and I think that it should be.
However, having listened to the arguments made in this debate and elsewhere in the past few weeks, I must say that some of the reaction to the proposals has been rather hysterical. Some media coverage has given the erroneous impression that the Bill provides the police with powers that they have not previously enjoyed. In fact, they have been using these powers for a very long time, but we need to regulate them.
It is clear that the use of intrusive surveillance has become an essential tool in the fight against organised crime and terrorism. In the great majority of cases when the police are in hot pursuit of organised criminals, a requirement for them to seek prior approval would seriously hamper their operational effectiveness.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: There is more in favour of the police's position than my hon. Friend has explained.

Mr. Greenway: I have not finished.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: It was unlawful for the police to trespass on someone's premises. It was not a criminal offence, but it was unlawful and they could be sued.
Although there were guidelines and the courts treated the evidence that was found as admissible, it was necessary for the police, who always want to be on the right side of the law, to take a risk that the legislation to regulate such action would be harsher than that which they had hitherto enjoyed. So the police deserve greater credit than my hon. Friend has given them.

Mr. Greenway: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. He has provided greater clarification than anyone else—he has even made it clearer than he did in his speech, which I listened to attentively.
To what extent do the new regulatory arrangements hamper the police's operational effectiveness? They have asked for this regulatory framework, but they have also made it abundantly clear that there are dangers in going too far and making life unnecessarily difficult. We should be a little more circumspect. I have listened to the concerns expressed on both sides of the House that this touches on some important and sensitive issues. The idea that the police will want to use bugging devices in solicitors' offices, doctors' surgeries, Catholic confessionals or even in people's homes on a daily basis is preposterous. However, I agree that the use of intrusive surveillance in homes and offices is a sensitive matter, which in normal circumstances should require prior approval. I made that point to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary several weeks ago.
My right hon. and learned Friend has clearly listened carefully to views about where the balance should best be struck. I have felt for some time that the best practical solution is to allow the chief constable authorisation, subject to immediate review by a commissioner, in the great majority of instances in which the police need to use intrusive surveillance techniques. We have already heard about car homing devices today.
When the use of intrusive surveillance in sensitive premises is planned, prior authorisation should be required, but I feel that in cases of extreme urgency chief constables must retain the power to authorise—although, again, that power should be subject to immediate review. I believe that they will use it extremely sparingly. I know that the House is being asked in effect to approve a proposed structure without any amendments having been tabled to the Bill, but I feel that the arrangements that we are discussing had to be aired on Second Reading, although in fact they are not contained in the legislation as it stands.
I also feel that, in reviewing the use of the powers with which we are dealing, the PACE test of reasonableness is probably the most appropriate test. If we do not use that test, there may well be occasions—as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out—on which the police get it wrong and, with the benefit of hindsight, people want to second-guess and criticise. I touched on this in an intervention, but I may not have explained clearly enough. I think that the key consideration in a retrospective consideration should be based on what the chief constable knew—or should reasonably have known—at the time, rather than on information became available subsequently.
I honestly believe that, if we cannot trust our chief constables with these powers, we are in a sorry state. I have every confidence that our chief constables will use the powers effectively. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—and, to be fair, the


hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—deserve a great deal of credit for reaching such a sensible compromise, and I hope that the Bill can now progress without further delay.
Arrangements allowing better targeting and co-ordination of police operations to deal with organised crime are long overdue. Our constituents want nothing more than to see the police tackle crime more vigorously, so that more villains are brought before the courts. Our constituents expect us to give the police the support and powers that they need to achieve that worthy aim, and we should do so by allowing the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I take a slightly more sceptical view than the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) of some of the activities in which the police engage. I am glad, but not surprised, that the Bill is having to be substantially rewritten. Just about all the legislation introduced by the present Home Secretary has had to be rewritten. With the possible exception of the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), I cannot think of a Minister who has been required to eat so much humble pie without its having the slightest effect on his demeanour.
The Home Secretary's change of heart is, I think, based on the belated realisation that the Bill, unamended, will not be passed. Indeed, I believe that he has been told as much by many of his hon. Friends, and all credit to them. The Bill raises serious issues, on which a number of hon. Members—not least my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen)—have touched. I do not take the apocalyptic view of the Bill expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who read out a long list of people who objected to it; I think that most of those people objected to the Bill as originally drafted, rather than the form that it will take after being amended.
I intend to concentrate on part III, but I want to make a couple of points about the National Crime Squad. It is important for that body to be accountable, but I am not convinced that the provisions in the Bill are adequate for the purpose. The matter needs to be explored in Committee. There is a history of unhappy experience with elite police squads: the West Midlands serious crime squad and the Metropolitan police pornography and drugs squads come to mind, but there are others. They became a law unto themselves, and senior officers lost control. Some members of those elite squads even turned to crime. Police authorities have proved entirely ineffective in bringing them to book, and have been rendered even less effective by the Home Secretary's recent reforms of their composition.
There are signs that some problems that are familiar elsewhere may already be surfacing at NCIS. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned some instances. Details of confidential inquiries appear to have been leaked to the subject of those inquiries, and only a few weeks ago it was reported that officers at NCIS were unable to account for records of large amounts of material that had been obtained as a result of surveillance. That is relevant to part III. If we are to have a National Crime Squad that will enjoy public confidence, it must be properly accountable.
I shall now deal with the most controversial part of the Bill. Let me say at the outset that I accept the central premise of part III—that there is sometimes a regrettable necessity for police to eavesdrop on those whom they have good reason to believe may be involved in serious crime. Given the intrusion into personal liberty, however, such action must be properly regulated.
I have no doubt that authorisation should be a matter for High Court rather than circuit judges. I am sure that there are many fine circuit judges who are perfectly capable of rigorously scrutinising applications to bug domestic premises, but they are not necessarily the ones who will be asked—more than once, at least. The judges who will be asked are those—there are many of them—who can be relied on to sign whatever is put before them. Circuit judges are often too much part of the local establishment to be relied on always to exercise the rigorous scrutiny that will be required. I should add that history records that some High Court judges have shown themselves extraordinarily gullible, not to say downright foolish, in accepting at face value the official version of events, especially when it has been delivered by men in police uniform. I recognise, however, that they are probably better placed than anyone to exercise proper scrutiny in this regard.
The police should not be allowed to pick and choose which commissioner to approach. If we allow that, there is a danger that the police will go for the softest touch. The commissioners should themselves draw up a rota to avoid that problem.
Clause 94 provides for authorisation to be given orally in urgent cases. As others have said, that is potentially a large loophole. The commissioners will need to watch the number of urgent cases carefully, and so shall we.
Inevitably—not much has been made of this so far today—much of the material gleaned through surveillance, perhaps all in some cases, will be irrelevant to the investigation. Some will be highly personal, while some will relate to people who are not involved in any way. My question—a question that I asked the Home Secretary in an intervention—is this: what happens to the material once it is no longer required? What assurance have we that it will be kept under lock and key and not used to entertain the troops, as has happened on some occasions? How quickly will it be destroyed?
There is a provision in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allowing innocent fingerprints to be destroyed. What obligation is there on the investigating officer to report to the commissioner on the destruction of irrelevant material? That matter needs to be examined carefully. I have had a quick look through the draft code of practice that appeared belatedly in the Vote Office and I do not see the destruction of relevant material mentioned anywhere in the code. When I raised the matter in an intervention, I received no satisfactory reply from the Home Secretary. We shall have to consider the matter in Committee.
Incidentally, I note that, once signed, those warrants will last for six months in relation to non-urgent cases and 15 days in relation to urgent cases. In six months, much material can be accumulated and much of it will be irrelevant to the subject of the investigation. We need to find out what is going to happen to such material.
My fourth point arises from clause 92, which defines the circumstances under which bugging is permitted. Similar definitions are contained in the Interception of


Communications Act 1985 and in the Intelligence Services Act 1994, which regulate the activities of the police and security services in respect of telephone tapping. As others have remarked, the definition of serious crimes in subsection (5) is sufficiently wide to include all sorts of innocent or relatively innocent activities. In particular, there is the reference to
conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose".
When pressed on the point, the Home Secretary said that the provision might, for example, refer to groups of neo-Nazis trying to disrupt a football match. It might, but it could include many other people: strikers, members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament or indeed organisers of any public demonstration.
The solution is simple; the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) suggested it earlier. The "or" at the end of subsection (5)(a) should be changed to "and", which would bring only offences likely to attract a prison sentence of three years or more within the Bill's scope. Similar amendments should be made to the other Acts to which I have referred.
Fifthly, I wonder—I do this hesitantly, as I do not know much about the technology involved—whether I am right in thinking that technology already exists to enable conversations to be monitored simply by pointing a beam at a window. Could it be that, in a few years from now, it will hardly be necessary to break into premises to monitor conversations therein, and that most bugging of domestic premises, or indeed a lawyer's offices, will be exempt from the Bill because, as I say, it is necessary only to point a beam at a window?
I do not know: I just ask. I suspect that that is the way in which things are going. I would hate to discover in a few years' time that most bugging is carried out by some other method entirely than that which we all think is relevant in relation to the Bill. I would appreciate some clarification of that point from the Minister, if he has the opportunity when he sums up.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: The question is whether that is covered by the requirement for wireless telegraphy. Is a beam wireless telegraphy? That is something that the Minister might answer.

Mr. Mullin: I hope that we shall get clarification on the matter in due course because it is potentially an important one.
Finally, I have grave difficulty in accepting that there are circumstances when it is necessary to bug a lawyer's office. I would like to hear—perhaps Committee is the appropriate place to have this discussion—some hard examples of cases where it has been necessary to bug a lawyer's offices. I accept that some lawyers misbehave, but I wonder whether the intrusion into liberty involved in bugging a lawyer's office outweighs any possible benefits. I just remark on that for the time being, but we shall have to consider the matter more closely in Committee, quite apart from which, if we do monitor a lawyer's offices, we are bound to pick up information about all sorts of other cases that were not the subject of the authorisation obtained. That is inevitable, and a potential problem too.
As I have said, the Bill is long overdue. I have no objection to the fundamental necessity in some particular and carefully defined and carefully authorised cases for

the police to bug criminals or people whom they suspect are criminals. It brings within the law an area of police activity that has far too often been clouded in obscurity. It inevitably involves interference with liberties that we rightly prize. It is brought to us by a Home Secretary who has shown himself careless of personal liberty, so we must consider the Bill carefully. Subject to the amendments that the Government propose, I shall not oppose it tonight, but it must be considered carefully in Committee.

Mr. Warren Hawksley: In following the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), I shall start by saying that I am afraid that I have perhaps more confidence in the police than he does. I believe that we should back them. We should back them against the civil liberties lobby in particular. In the Bill, we have a balance that is just about right.
This is an important Bill. It is one of a series that the Home Secretary is introducing. In the past four years, we have had a variety of Bills, some of which have not yet been implemented. I think particularly of the power to lock away young offenders, which Parliament gave, although the places to put them in are not yet ready. It is right that we should have the series of measures coming through to toughen up the law and to give agencies that implement the law the tools and the power that they need. The Bill will help them to reduce serious crime—in the Bill, we are talking particularly of serious crime.
In the other place, the parts of the Bill that cover the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service have not had as much publicity as other aspects of the Bill, but both bodies are moves in the right direction. It is correct that we should put them on to a statutory footing. The fact that the crime squad will work with police forces to investigate crime not just locally, but at national and at international level is to be welcomed. That will bring great benefits in the fight against major crime.
It is important that we should support those bodies, particularly in relation to the fight against drugs, which is a major problem and which is not getting any better. Much of their work will involve that problem. Some 10 years ago or more, I was taken by a chief superintendent around a housing estate in my old constituency of The Wrekin. He pointed out that he believed that the estate probably had the worst house-breaking problem of any in the West Mercia police authority region. He reckoned that 80 per cent. of the burglaries were drug-oriented. If that was the position then, I am sure that the matter is no better today.
NCIS has worked well under the Home Office and it has had some great successes, which we have heard about from other Members during the debate, but it is right to put it, at this stage, on a statutory footing. The one concern I have, which has been mentioned by other hon. Members, was raised with me by the West Midland Police Federation. It did not seem to have been involved in the Bill. It welcomes it, as does the Association of Chief Police Officers, but it rightly feels that it has not been consulted to the extent that it used to be consulted in the earlier days of the Government.
It would have been better for more consultations to have taken place. Certainly, that is the view of my police federation. It raises three points, which I think are all legitimate. It is concerned about officers having different disciplinary regulations, different police regulations and


different complaints procedures when they are with the squad or NCIS than when they are with their own force. Members of the federation think that that is wrong and that it is confusing, and they do not find it very helpful.
Federation members also require clarification—I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will provide it in his reply—on whether it is intended that people working in those squads should be covered by the normal procedure allowing them to bring a colleague or friend to represent them. Conservative Members have already mentioned that matter. I remember that—in the early or mid-1980s, when I served on a Committee examining a Bill—I supported an amendment that had been tabled by the then Member of Parliament for Bury St. Edmunds, who was representing the Police Federation, which tried to give that right to charged officers. We should ensure that the facility is retained for police force members if they are brought under disciplinary procedures. It is very important that we should do so.
As for the issue of placing technology on a statutory footing, I cannot express it better than a letter sent to a newspaper by ACPO representatives. The letter covered the issue very well, and was signed by the president and officers of the organisation. It stated:
The Police Bill does not provide for new tactics. It seeks to put existing activity on a statutory basis—a point which the police (and others, including Law Lords) believe increases accountability.
The letter goes on to describe the way in which announcements, discussions and debates have been reported. It states:
Some editors and others, who really should know better—including some solicitors, barristers, and even some members of the House of Lords—have suggested that the police will seek to listen to conversations between solicitors and clients. It would be quite unlawful for chief constables to authorise such activity on those grounds alone.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) might be interested in the next part of the letter. It states:
If, however, it were to be suspected that solicitors were discussing corrupt acts such as money-laundering and jury-fixing, they would not be protected—nor should they be.
I agree entirely with that view. It continues:
If solicitors or their premises were to be specifically exempted from surveillance, we can readily guess where armed robbers could go to plan their next raid.
I think that we would be causing many problems if we took that route.
I listened carefully to the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on the compromise he reached with Opposition Front Benchers on the problems resulting from the amendments passed in the other place. Although I would have been quite happy with the original provisions, I am prepared to accept the changes that he has proposed. However, I believe that—in cases of emergency, although it would not be the norm—it is absolutely essential that there should be that discretion to obtain the commissioner's approval after the event.
It was very disappointing that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) suggested that such a discretion would drive a coach and horses through the legislation, because I do not believe that it would. The shadow Home Secretary covered the point very well, as did the Home Secretary, and he gave examples of when

the Bill's provisions would have to be used very quickly. It is essential that the amendment does not eliminate such emergency use.
It is interesting to see the way in which the Labour party has come round on matters of law and order during this Session of Parliament. New Labour now believes that the issue of law and order is important, and we are learning that Labour Members are very concerned by it. I have served on many Committees, and, right back to 1979, any attempt by the Government to toughen up the law has never had Opposition support. However, I also served on the Committee examining the recent Crime (Sentences) Bill, and I was fascinated at how rarely the Opposition forced divisions, even on such important matters as mandatory sentencing. Although the other place seems to be taking a more robust line against the Government, the changes we are witnessing in the Opposition are very important.
It is also important that the Labour party is supporting the Government's attempts to toughen up law and order. I welcome that conversion, and I hope that it is genuine and that it will continue. I hope that Labour is now seeing the error of its ways. I believe that the public are demanding that hon. Members of all political persuasions take a tough line and act very firmly on crime.
The criminal records agency, which I welcome, has caused many comments in this debate. However, I hope that it will be accurate. Within the past week, a constituent of mine, who is a mini-cab driver, needed to attain a certificate. He discovered that, according to police records, he apparently had a conviction 20 years previously for child abuse. There have been great problems in clarifying the matter, because it was claimed that the offence had occurred in what was originally the West Mercia police authority, but which is now the West Midlands authority. By establishing an agency, I hope that we shall gradually have a much more accurate record. I have been having problems in this specific case in clearing my constituent's record, although he has assured me that he has never been charged with or convicted of child abuse. The problem is that he has been refused a job as a cab driver until it is confirmed that his record is clear.
We have heard about various organisations, such as guides and scouts, with problems and fears about having to pay for certificates. I have received a letter from the Worcestershire Federation of Young Farmers Clubs—an organisation which one would not necessarily expect to be concerned and worried about certificates—that states:
As a Voluntary Youth Organisation in Worcestershire we feel that, should this Bill be passed catastrophic implications for our group and many like ours will occur. We are a self funding organisation with NO County Council grant aid, with 450 plus members who's ages range from 11 years to 26 years together with a huge back up support of older, usually past members who give their free time to help up and coming new members.
To pay for a police check of TEN pounds for every person over the age of 18 would cover about half of our current membership, together with every parent and past member who offers to help coach netball or paint scenery for a pantomime. We would NOT be in a position to cover these costs which would mean that rural and city members alike would lose an organisation they love to be part of.
I am very concerned about the idea that we should charge. The description of the Bill's financial effects seems to be so vague, stating that about 8 million to 20 million might be affected. It also mentions
uncertainties about the initial demand.


In his reply, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will tell us a bit more about those matters. I am not quite sure how many people will need certificates, and it would be helpful to know the number, and whether the cost will be as large as the £200 million figure he suggested. The description of the financial effects also states that, in the first year, the cost could be as low as £10 million. That would not be an unacceptable figure—if it would allow the voluntary sector to continue without concern for its future. We must look after those people.
I believe that we are right to support this Bill. I hope that it will receive massive support and a smooth passage, and I particularly hope that it will be on the statute book before the general election. However, I also hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will tell us, either in his reply to this debate or in Committee, how the legislation can be amended to reassure the Police Federation and such organisations as the Young Farmers Clubs.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I should say that I know that several hon. Members still wish to speak. They will be disappointed unless succeeding speeches are kept succinct.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: I shall do my best to follow that instruction.
It has been obvious during the debate, particularly from the number of interventions on the Home Secretary, that there is still a great deal of disquiet about the Bill on both sides of the House. The original drafting has been improved, but it is still defective. The Secretary of State said that action should be taken against organised professional criminals. We all accept that that is necessary. The test of the Bill is whether it does that, while maintaining the necessary safeguards for civil liberties.
I shall deal first with the provisions for surveillance and bugging of premises. Everyone who has spoken in the debate has recognised that there are circumstances in which bugging and surveillance are necessary. There is no dispute about that. However, we should also accept that the number of cases and the scope should be limited. There should also be easy redress when the bugging cannot be justified.
I welcome the fact that there will be regulation of an activity that the police have carried out in an unregulated way for many years. However, I still have great concerns about the Bill. Although we are told that there will be amendments, none of us has seen the text of them or the promised codes of practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) was the first speaker in the debate to raise two issues that I should like to address. They are worth repeating. First, we should consider what is being regulated. With modern technology, it is obvious that bugging techniques are improving all the time. The Bill refers to entry of or interference with property. I suspect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South said, that we are close to the point—if we have not already reached it—at which it will be possible to listen to conversations going on inside a property without needing to enter that property to place a bug. It is not clear whether that will be regulated by the Bill. We might end up with

a measure dealing only with protection of entry to property rather than the central issue of intrusive surveillance.
The second point is what happens to the material collected. Let us suppose that a solicitor is bugged. I can imagine circumstances in which that might be justified, as the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) pointed out. There might be evidence of a solicitor being involved in criminal activity, for example. However, it is impossible to bug a solicitor without also recording conversations with innocent clients who are in no way connected with the crime of which the solicitor is suspected. Those people may never know about that if the information obtained from the bugging is not used in a prosecution. What safeguards do they have? How can we be sure that the information gained in that way does not find its way on to police intelligence computers?
If, for whatever reason, my fingerprints are taken, I know that that has been done. If no charges result, I know that I can see those records destroyed. What happens if information is collected on me without my knowledge because there has been no charge or prosecution? I was far from convinced by the Secretary of State's reply to my intervention during his speech that it will be up to the courts to decide. The issue may never reach a court. It is not good enough to accept that information collected in that way may end up on police intelligence systems. That also relates to the other provision in the Bill that I want to consider—criminal records certificates. The bugging of a solicitor's office is just one example. I suspect that many bugging operations will inevitably involve the collection of large amounts of information irrelevant to the purpose of the bugging. What happens to that is very important.
I do not want to repeat important comments made by other hon. Members about the definition of serious crime and prior authority, because those issues have been adequately covered. My final point about this part of the Bill—the issue crops up again in the provisions relating to criminal records—relates to the complaints mechanisms. The mechanism in the Bill is inadequate. The commissioner's decision is not open to challenge by a court or open to appeal. I understand from the opening speeches that there will be some amendments and we shall not be left in the current position in which all that is at stake in any complaint will be on a judicial review basis. I should be happier if it was clear that the authorisation mechanisms and the complaints mechanisms were completely separate and there was no possibility of the commissioners being involved in both. That would give me more confidence.
On part V, I am less than happy at the growing demands—not just in the Bill—for information about people who have convictions to be made available to the public. We are in danger of losing some principles that we have always had about privacy mattering and people having the opportunity, after having a conviction and serving a sentence, to go back to normal, productive life.
I accept that there must be a balance. It would clearly be wrong for those with certain types of conviction to be able to hide the fact. There are particular problems with organised paedophile activity which have been clearly illustrated recently. If a conviction is relevant to a job, a mechanism is needed for establishing the fact. The current position is clearly not satisfactory. People slip through


the net of the current mixture of legislation and practices—Thomas Hamilton in Dunblane was mentioned as an example.
I believe that the Bill is too broad and has too few safeguards. I suspect that the criminal convictions certificate—the lower level of certificate—will become the norm. The Secretary of State suggested that there might be a time limit. I do not know what that limit will be. I suspect that some people will be asked repeatedly. Once criminal convictions certificates come into use, there will be an incentive for someone applying for a job to get one. If I were applying for a job and I knew that I had a clean record, I might well want to get a copy of my certificate and enclose it with my application. I suspect that it will not be long before they become the norm for a range of jobs, for many of which convictions will be irrelevant. It has been pointed out earlier that there is a danger of some people becoming unemployable and inevitably drifting back into crime.
Cautions are to be included in the enhanced checks. Many people accept a caution without realising that they are implicitly admitting that they have done something. I suspect that that will change and more cases in which people would currently accept a caution will go to court. The caution might become a less useful mechanism than at present.

Mr. Benn: Has my hon. Friend considered the position of someone who committed an act under the Sexual Offences Act 1967 which would no longer be an offence? He would have to submit a document saying that he had had a homosexual relationship at a time when that was an offence, even though it no longer is. The provisions are grossly biased against some people's backgrounds.

Mr. Gerrard: That is a very good example of an action having been an offence that led to a conviction but ceasing to be an offence. What is the position then?
I am particularly concerned about the enhanced certificates and the inclusion of acquittal information, information that may be acquired in bugging and speculative information from police intelligence. Anyone who has seen the quality of some police intelligence would be concerned. I do not believe that chief constables should be the sole power in deciding what can and cannot be disclosed. If we are to have such certificates, we must have mechanisms for redress.
The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge raised a constituency case. I recently dealt with a similar case. A constituent of mine, Mrs. Iqbal, applied for a job with the social services department, which asked her to get evidence from the police of her criminal record. She wrote to me and explained that she had no worries about that because she had never been in trouble with the police and had never been convicted. The police responded to the social services department's inquiry telling it that she had a conviction for shoplifting. What proved to have happened was that the police had confused her with someone else of the same name who had a similar date of birth. Fortunately, the social services department was willing to hold open the job offer for four or five weeks until the matter was cleared up. She had resigned from her previous job and could have lost her new job. As it was, she lost several weeks' wages as a result of that trivial mistake.
How is it possible to correct such mistakes? All we have in the Bill as it stands is clause 107, which states:
Where an applicant … believes that the information contained in the certificate is inaccurate he may make an application in writing to the Secretary of State for a new certificate.
I think that that is a completely inadequate mechanism for redress. We need much better safeguards, allowing people to challenge the accuracy of information on certificates. An amendment moved in another place would have set up an independent tribunal to which applications could have been made, which would have been a much more satisfactory mechanism. It is wrong that information can be sent to a prospective employer in an enhanced certificate that the applicant never sees and therefore does not have the possibility of challenging.
As I said at the outset, this Bill is better than the original draft, but it is still full of problems. There are no mechanisms by which people can seek redress, get compensation or challenge what is said about them. What happens if someone loses a job as a result of inaccurate information given about them—perhaps based on police intelligence? I still have very serious concerns about the Bill. I know that we are promised an amendment and that the Bill will come back to us eventually in a different form. It needs to be significantly different from its present form.

Rev. Ian Paisley: At the beginning of the debate, I raised with the Home Secretary the question whether the Bill was a serious constitutional Bill. Speeches for and against the Bill have underlined over and over again that it is. It touches the very heart of society and the very heart of the life of society. As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) put so well, it is strange that there is a one-way street when it comes to capital and labour. How can it be that I am not allowed to know the criminal background of my employer but he has the right to demand details of my criminal background if I have one? There is something very seriously wrong about that.
I deplore the attitude of the Home Secretary. I said that I did not want to hinder him in getting the Bill through the House, but that the matter must be thoroughly discussed. Undigested legislation is a curse. We find out later all the mistakes that we could have found out if we had had full discussion. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) said that there are other Bills to get through, but that is absolutely no argument. If we push through legislation on this important matter because other Bills are lining up to get through, we shall not have a good Bill.
My record is well known: I am a supporter of the police. I have stood alone in the European Parliament to defend the Royal Ulster Constabulary against everybody who was present. I believe that the police need to be supported. I believe that the hour is grave and that we should listen to what action the police feel should be taken. Legislators have a responsibility to discern what they can support absolutely and what they must question—searching to see whether other provisions can be made. We cannot give policemen a blank cheque. They also must be subject to the law. When the police force or individual members of it are not subject to the law, they bring contempt on the whole power and moral authority of the police.
I regret the attitude of the Home Secretary. I also regret the attitude of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who argued that the Bill was not a constitutional Bill. I believe that it is and that this House should not kick it upstairs after tonight's debate. I am convinced about that because those of us who support the principle of supporting the police are being asked to give a blank cheque in return for being shown amendments later. We want to see the thrust of the amendments now so that we can have a proper debate on Second Reading.
The amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats should not just be dismissed as it was from the Labour Front Bench. By tabling an amendment, the Liberal Democrats are at least putting on a brake and saying that on some things we need to be absolutely sure. Any of us who have been long in the House have learned that, when both Front-Bench teams make an agreement, one's voice is a cry in the wilderness. Everybody knows that it is very hard to make the crooked path straight and the rough places smooth when the two Front-Bench teams have made an agreement. Yet due to the Bill's constitutional nature, both Front-Bench teams have a responsibility not to start rushing on but to listen.
The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley), who is for the Bill, made some very trenchant criticisms and raised some questions that needed to be listened to. One of them was that we should dismiss any suggestion that records could be wrong, yet the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) have brought proof that the records have been wrong. I have had experience of it in my constituency. It took me months to get the records set straight, but all the damage was done and the individual suffered from it. It is not easy to repair such damage.
Let us consider the multitude of certificates that will be floating about. I have a criminal record—I am quite proud of it. I was sent to this House because the people of North Antrim said that I did right to go to gaol and make my protest—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: A constitutional record.

Rev. Ian Paisley: A constitutional record, yes, but I do not mind. The Lord Jesus Christ was crucified for having a criminal record and we know that he was the sinless son of God who died for sins of poor sinners like the people who sit in this House, including myself. There is repentance, forgiveness and conversion. If we do not believe in that, there is no hope. Why should a person be held to ransom for ever because of something he has done? Christ taught that there can be no forgiveness without repentance, and if a man repents and shows that he has left his old path, he should be helped, not hindered, by society.
I was amazed by the Home Secretary's attitude to the fee for certificates. He said that everybody can pay £5 or £6. Can they? If people are unemployed for a long time, £5 is very precious to them. I had the biggest lobby that I have ever had on one subject from the voluntary organisations on this issue. People with time on their hands go to voluntary organisations to volunteer. Should the organisations tell people that they must pay £6 or £10 for a certificate before they can work? How many people will volunteer then? My constituency has a large

farming community and, like the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge, I was lobbied by young farmers' clubs. I hope that the Home Secretary will listen to their voices. Serious damage could be done to voluntary bodies, which form the cement of society, if we do not heed what they are saying. I plead with the Home Secretary to change his mind on this issue.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has advanced an interesting and relevant argument. Why should we assume that those who are responsible for granting the licences have a better record or pedigree than those to whom they are granting the licences?

Rev. Ian Paisley: We have no assurance of that. We do not know whether those people have produced a certificate to get the job of issuing certificates. If the hon. Gentleman started to make inquiries into their pedigrees, a wall of steel would be erected to stop him finding out who they are.

Rev. William McCrea: Does my hon. Friend agree that, because support for this issue crosses party boundaries, we should be able to vote on it and ensure that those iniquitous provisions are removed from the Bill? That would show that hon. Members are listening to their constituents. I hope that the Opposition will strongly support that proposition, because they should stand up for the voluntary organisations and those who have little money but a lot to contribute to society.

Rev. Ian Paisley: My hon. Friend has not been in the House as long as I have. He will learn that those who sit on the two Front Benches cannot be stopped, once they make up their mind. If their minds are made up to go to hell, to hell they will go, and no amount of preaching from me or anybody else will convert them.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: indicated assent.

Rev. Ian Paisley: My hon. Friend knows what hardened sinners they are, but even the most hardened sinner can repent. There is hope and forgiveness for all.
We are here tonight because alarm bells were sounded in another place. I am not in favour of the House of Lords or the hereditary principle. Nominees are even worse, because we do not know where fellows on the honours list have come from or what they have done. We cannot look at their pedigrees. Those in the other place who sounded the alarm bells the loudest were former Members of this place, who knew what was happening in the constituencies.
It is amazing that, in a country that has an established Church and had the benefit of the reformation—and where the Roman Catholic Church has not formed the doctrine of the state—the Home Secretary and the leader of the Labour party can approve the seal of the confessional. What is the seal of the confessional? If a Roman Catholic goes to his priest for forgiveness and repeats all his sins, the priest must not tell anyone what he says, even if he confesses that he intends to murder his next door neighbour or that he has already committed an atrocious crime.
What will it mean if some places may not be bugged? Anybody who has read Irish republican history will know that republican priests were used in all the rebellions.


One active IRA priest was able to use his priestly authority to commit criminal acts that led to people being killed. I do not ask for any special privilege as the pastor of a large congregation. I know the secrets of many of my parishioners, but I believe that only God can forgive sins and I do not want to listen to their confessions.
A parishioner came to me once and confessed that he had committed a terrible crime. I got out my car and took him to the police station. I told the police that the man had committed a terrible crime and that the only way to clear his conscience was to make a clean breast of it. He did, he paid the price and he went to prison. He is out now and he often tells me that that was the best day's work I ever did, because his burden has been lifted and he no longer has to look over his shoulder and wonder what will happen to him.
I do not take it well when certain people say, "You cannot touch this," and, "You cannot touch that." I believe that the most private place of all is not any church building, but is in the recesses of a person's home when he sits with his family. That is a castle which should not be breached by this legislation. I do not think that any society should move lightly—as we seem to be doing in this Bill—to permit acts of burglary to install certain gadgets.
I do not believe that these gadgets will do what the Government expect. My office was, at one time, under surveillance. In reading the Bill, I had to smile when I read that I had been guilty of conducting myself with a large number of persons in pursuit of a "common purpose"—the "common purpose" being to do away with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I thought that beams were being sent into my office, and I asked a technician—a member of my church—if he could tell me whether this was the case. He came down with a suitcase and produced all these gadgets, which he turned on. He then said he could see where the beams were coming from, and added that he could do something about it by pressing a button which would let the people sending the beam know that I was aware of it. He put the machine on, and the beam was gone. They got the message that I was breaking the beam and that I knew what they were doing. It would be nice to know from the Secretary of State whether he has the power to deal with that type of surveillance, because it could be the worst sort with which we have to deal.
These are the matters that affect me, and I think that the Bill should go to a Committee of the whole House where everybody from all parts of the United Kingdom could have a full say. I hope and trust that that will happen.

9 pm

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Apart from a brief absence, I have been present to listen to all the speeches in this debate. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), as I wholeheartedly agreed with between 85 per cent. and 90 per cent. of his speech. The one particular message that was important was his reference to the constitutional importance of the legislation, and I support his view on this matter—that the Bill should be dealt with as a constitutional Bill on the Floor of the House.
One complaint that I have about the speech of the hon. Member for North Antrim is that he was far too charitable and courteous to the hon. Member for Halesowen and

Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley), who opened his remarks by saying, "We must support the police"—implying that anyone not in the Lobby with the Home Secretary tonight would be against the police. That is an outrageous slur on hon. Members who wish to scrutinise legislation as well as do justice to the police. We need no lessons from him about supporting the police, and we wish to do a diligent job as hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge went on to refer to the civil liberties lobby as if they were loopy, but then complained—no doubt for local consumption—that his local police federation was concerned about some of the employment ramifications of the Bill. He also referred to the Worcestershire young farmers, who will be faced with enormous costs following this legislation. No doubt he will trot that out back home to show how strong and vigilant he has been in the Chamber. He should support the hon. Member for North Antrim and others who believe that there should be proper scrutiny of the legislation, The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge needs to be put in his place.
I certainly recognise that some aspects of the Bill have merit. For example, we need to protect youngsters who are members of voluntary organisations, and we certainly need to combat organised crime and the appalling growth of terrorism. Earlier, I spoke with the chief executive of the Scouts Association who stated that the Scouts and other charitable organisations had real concerns about the cost implications of the Bill, and about the fact that it will deter people from taking part in important youth work.
It is no good the Home Secretary, or indeed the shadow Home Secretary, saying that this is not a real problem. If there are costs for charitable organisations, we are duty bound to minimise them—if not avoid them. The House must address itself to that matter. For the record, the Scouts Association considers that if the legislation is unamended, vetting will cost the Scouts £500,000 a year.
We have heard the Home Secretary state that he wishes to repeal the so-called Weatherill amendment. There were indications in another place that the Government had argued that there would not necessarily be a duty to vet all volunteers who have access to children and young people. That fills the Scout Association and me with concern. There is demonstrably a need for proper vetting, but it should not impose disproportionate costs.
Equally, the Bill needs scrutiny to ensure that absurd provisions are not included. For example, a piano teacher with a regular group of young pupils will, as the Bill stands, have to apply for vetting. That shows how the Bill is ill conceived, ill thought out and ill prepared; it does no credit to the Home Secretary or to those who are prepared to let it pass without criticism today.
The one subject on which I reserve support for the hon. Member for Antrim, North concerns ministers of religion. I would not dispute his great knowledge of the reformation, but I am told by Anglican ministers that the Act of Uniformity 1662 reinforced the concept of what is described as the sacrament of confession in the Church of England. It is a matter of English law. Indeed, I am told that Anglican ministers are prohibited from treating the seal of the confession as anything other than sacrosanct. The sanctity of confession is therefore not a matter only of Roman Catholicism; it concerns English law in relation to the established Church.
Ministers of religion, when acting in that capacity, must have some privilege, whether they be rabbis, Roman Catholic priests, Anglican ministers, Methodist ministers—my local Methodist minister, the Rev. Bob Pritchard, in particular, is concerned about the matter—along with members of the Presbyterian Church and ministers of many other religions.
The Anglican Bishop of Bradwell reminded me—perhaps this backs up to some extent what the hon. Member for Antrim, North said in the latter part of his speech—that any prudent, self-respecting and dutiful minister of religion who is consulted by someone who is troubled in conscience and may have committed a heinous crime, will counsel that, if there is remorse, one must own up to one's wrongdoing or crime.
There must be many instances—we have no way of measuring—in which ministers of religion have helped the police and minimised the trauma and hurt that come from prolonged investigations, because people have taken their advice, owned up and demonstrated contrition.
Electronic surveillance of the confessional or of discussions with ministers of religion that are not described as confessional is not an absurd notion. There was a serious case of that in the past 12 months in the United States of America, which has the same common law system as we do. That incident has now been challenged in the courts there.
I have some sympathy with law enforcement officers, who come under political, public and professional pressure to try to get an arrest in the shortest possible time; that is their duty. If they have no limitation by statute on how they should conduct their inquiries they would almost be failing in their duties if they did not exploit every means open to them.
That is why there should be a specific exemption in the Bill—not in the code of practice—to ensure that the discussions of ministers of religion and others, including lawyers, counsellors and social workers, who receive confidential information in a professional capacity, are not trespassed on by electronic surveillance.
I know that others want to speak, but I have been here throughout the debate, which is not true of every hon. Member who has spoken or who is present at the moment. I want to express my grave disquiet about the way in which the legislative process of the Bill is being conducted.
The Bill has a big chunk missing, which will be contained in the code of practice. Earlier, I had occasion to complain that, for two or three days, I had been seeking from the Vote Office any supporting material to the Bill. However, nothing was available. Today, I discovered that a senior churchman had for some days had a copy of the code of practice.
I telephoned the Home Secretary's private office, and was told that no code of practice relating to surveillance was available. I expressed concern, and said that someone outside the House had a copy. The good gentleman I spoke to was somewhat embarrassed, and said that he would come back to me. Just before 1 o'clock, a code of practice was faxed to me.
To be candid, between then and the beginning of this debate, I did not have the opportunity to give it the scrutiny, understanding and reading that I would have liked. We then found that the draft code was still not

available in the Vote Office. That is an outrage, and it shows what a charade our legislative process is. We pretend to A-level and university students that we give our legislation great scrutiny, but we do not.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who is not in his place, told us that we could not deal with the matter on the Floor of the House because the general election is coming up soon. If one railroads legislation merely because of the impending general election, that demonstrates my point—we are not doing things properly, and our processes are being dictated by other considerations.
I am not prepared, therefore, to acquiesce in sloppy law making for anyone. I notice that the Opposition Front Bench is now vacant, which I regret. I was asked from a sedentary position whether I would like to serve on the Standing Committee that will consider the Bill. I do not mind doing so, but I give notice that I will seek to amend it.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I do not want to put the hon. Gentleman in a difficult position, but it is possible that the new Parliament will have a Labour Government—I say not probable, but possible. Would the hon. Gentleman then insist that all constitutional matters were taken on the Floor of the House and not upstairs in Committee, as has been indicated?

Mr. Mackinlay: "Insist" is the wrong term. I do not have sufficient clout. I have made it abundantly clear, however, both inside and outside the House, that the tradition whereby constitutional issues are dealt with on the Floor of the House should not be abrogated. On previous occasions when both the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary have been pushing through legislation, I have also as a matter of record said that I did not think that the legislation was being given sufficient scrutiny. I do not vary my line. It has probably not done me a great deal of good, but I happen to believe that we in this House must jealously guard the proper scrutiny of legislation. That is not happening at this time.
How can I be satisfied that, by giving a nod and a wink to this legislation tonight, the code of practice will be sufficient? We will debate that code, which is bigger in volume and importance than a whole Act of Parliament, for one and a half hours, and it is wrong that it cannot be amended. For those reasons, I have no alternative but to demonstrate my deep concern about the way the House is behaving, and the only way I can do so is by joining the Liberals in the Lobby tonight.

Sir Michael Marshall: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak briefly. I understand that a number of my hon. Friends wish to speak.
My frustration is twofold. Many of the things that I would have wished to say in a considered way will inevitably be squeezed because of time constraints. My frustration is also due to the fact that there has been a total lack of comment about part IV of the Bill.
As the chairman of the all-party parliamentary information technology group, I must put this thought to the House. I believe that the battle against crime in the 21st century will be fought over information technology. Anyone who has visited the Metropolitan police, as our


group did recently, will realise that crime now encompasses a vast range of factories producing forged credit cards, and also the Internet, which is used in the promotion of pornography and racial discrimination.
Information technology is used not only in objectionable ways but to further intelligence. It is good to note, thank heavens, that Scotland Yard is gearing up. PITO, the Police Information Technology Organisation, allows the co-ordination of forces up and down the country, and it means that there is a chance of success against highly organised technical crime. The recent paedophilia case arrests show how police have developed such skills. PITO is important.
I hope that the Minister will address those issues. The proposed organisation is worthy of serious consideration. It enables us to overcome a problem that has persisted for generations: police forces that could not talk to one another. Their information technology was not compatible, but there has been a sea change, which the Bill reflects.
I shall touch on one or two things that are going on, which PITO is designed to help co-ordinate. In particular, I shall highlight the wider issues that reflect on that organisation's work. There are moral and ethical questions, which the Worshipful Company of Information Technologists brought out in the House of Lords in a symposium earlier this week. Such issues were mentioned by Commissioner Sir Paul Condon in talking to groups in this House. He showed how the way in which his force and others around this country co-ordinate their activities is critical.
When I speak of this country, I refer to pilot schemes in Scotland and London designed to bring service directly to the great British public. It is not commonly recognised that more than a quarter of all calls by individuals on police stations are made to produce documents in connection with motoring offences. When one considers the time and dispersion of effort involved, it is clear that providing kiosks in public places for document recognition, use of the 999 system and to provide a range of emergency services are the sort of wider issues that the organisation can help to co-ordinate and drive on.
We have a national strategy for police information systems, which is the basis on which the organisation and the various forces will operate. However, the police national computer service, which began 20 years ago, is in many ways out of date. It must be brought up to date.
I want to mention briefly my police force in Sussex, which can claim to be at the forefront of the use of IT against crime. Its communications centre in Bognor Regis in my constituency has a state-of-the-art example of what can be done. The way in which it has been able to respond to emergencies, such as terrorist bombings in my constituency, has demonstrated that in practice. More widely, the Sussex police have shown exemplary zeal in pursuing modern technology—for example, in chasing stolen cars by satellite surveillance as they move from Britain to other parts of Europe.
It is on the wider aspect that I shall conclude. One of the major schemes with which the Met is concerned, and in which PITO can help British national interests, is the EU Telematics programme. That goes under the wonderful acronym of ATTACH, Advanced

Trans-European Telematics Applications for Community Help. It is another example, like the kiosks, of the sort of work that will allow us to give the public a direct link to our police force. It is notable—I could quote several other cases—that half the funding for that scheme comes from a 4 million ecu scheme in the European Community. It is a positive case that should be taken into account among what I might call the welter of one-sided views of Brussels.
I could also cite the great hopes for GRASP—the global retrieval access and information system for property items. The greatest crime for the majority of our constituents is theft. The fact that there is another international scheme—again, half-funded through the European Community and involving this country, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Spain—will enable us to trace stolen goods through the greater application of data and imagery.
This subject could be developed far more widely than I have had the opportunity to do tonight. I am particularly concerned that PITO should not only be given a fair wind by the House, but that its operations and activities in the battle against IT crime should be seen for what they are—the real challenge to crime in the 21st century. This House has a role to play in that endeavour.

Sir Michael Shersby: I wish to declare an outside interest: I am parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales in accordance with the Police Acts.
The federation is the largest police staff association in Britain; it therefore has a keen interest in the contents of the Bill. It represents constables, sergeants, inspectors and chief inspectors—in all, some 127,000 police officers. The Bill—especially the clauses that affect the federation's members—was drafted in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers. There has not been any real consultation between the Home Office and the Police Federation, although I was glad to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary say earlier that there would be consultation in future on the terms and conditions of employment of members of the police service.
The Government have given the federation some assurance that things will be all right on the night, so to speak, but the experience of the federation's members is that, unless their concerns are put on the record, these matters can be left to interpretation. With 43 forces and 43 chief constables, there are at least 43 possible interpretations, each different from the next. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to reflect and to consult with the federation before there are changes to its members' police regulations and complaints and discipline procedures.
All police officers carry out their duties under the auspices of the Police Regulations 1995. The regulations have been properly negotiated at the police negotiating board. The Bill suggests a change to those regulations for officers who work for the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service. However, any amendment to existing regulations to enable NCS and NCIS officers can be properly negotiated through the tried and tested police negotiating board machinery. If that is not done, there could be problems when officers from those bodies work alongside non-NCS and NCIS officers and different regulations apply to both groups.
The Government have indicated that all officers serving in those two important organisations will be volunteers. That may well be so, but let us consider the case of an individual who, when asked or recommended to apply for NCS or NCIS posts, indicates that such a move is not in accordance with his wishes. I have to ask, would he in fact be committing career suicide by refusing to take the post? Police regulations apply nationally to 43 different forces and cover officers who perform a variety of tasks, from traffic patrol to drug squad, and from domestic violence units to firearms officers. There is no reason why they should not apply to officers serving in the NCS or the NCIS.
There is also the important question of the discipline regulations, which are referred to in two parts of the Bill, in clauses 37 and 81. Undoubtedly, the general public must have confidence in the police service in this country to ensure that there is an effective rule of law. The general public equally need to feel confident that a proper, structured complaints system is in being if the service or its operators are perceived to be acting wrongfully.
All police forces operate within the same discipline code and discipline regulations. Similarly, the method for making any complaint is universal, and well established. The Bill appears to suggest that officers seconded to the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service will operate under a different discipline code and regulations. That may, I fear, cause confusion among members of the public. It might also create the impression that there is a lack of confidence in the existing complaints and discipline system.
There are practical problems. If an officer, for example, completes his or her duties at the NCS or the NCIS and is accused of a criminal act, does that officer have access to advice before responding to the allegations, as is the right of all people under the rule of law? Then there is the question, if that officer be found guilty and returned to his or her home force, will that finding of guilt be disclosable? How can fairness and equity for all be guaranteed when an officer is placed in that position? If the same officer is accused of a later disciplinary offence and appears before the chief constable of his own force, does that officer's antecedent contain a declaration of a finding of guilt from a different discipline code?
I therefore ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to reflect on those matters, and to give them careful consideration before the Bill is considered in Committee.
I shall briefly say two more things. The first concerns criminal records certificates. I do not welcome the widespread extension of those certificates throughout society, but I believe that, in today's debate, there has been a general misunderstanding of what is likely to happen when certificates are issued at the lower level.
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act—introduced, I well remember, as a private Member's Bill in 1974 by Mr. Piers Dixon, who was then the Member for Truro—provided that the period of rehabilitation be related to the length of the sentence passed on the offender, and the rehabilitation periods guarantee that spent convictions are expunged from the records and will not be provided in response to requests for the lower level certificates. The offences that are expunged range from imprisonment to youth custody, detention in a young offenders institution, corrective training and so on.
I therefore believe that there is less need for concern than has been suggested by the comments in tonight's debate that young people, especially, will be adversely affected if the Bill passes in its present form, because of the very important provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
I support the Bill. I believe that it is right to put the powers of the police into statute. The police welcome the Bill from that point of view, and I hope that it receives a Second Reading tonight.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for the chance to catch your eye to make a brief speech.
I am sure that the whole House supports, as we have heard, the idea of legislation to give the police extra and more effective powers to fight crime, especially organised crime, by what are described, I understand, as firms of big time criminals. That is obviously in the public interest. In so far as the Bill is designed to achieve such a purpose, it definitely deserves a Second Reading tonight, and one which I hope will attract a good-sized majority.
However, when we legislate to provide extra powers for the police, as the Government have done on very many occasions in the past 18 years, we must always try to ensure that such measures are balanced by proper constitutional safeguards for the citizens of this country against the possibility of abuse of power by the forces of law and order. In that way, we can ensure that the practices of policing in this country remain justifiable in the eyes of our constituents and of the courts, and equally that the practices are effective in achieving the main purposes of preventing and detecting serious crime.
I do not have time to go into detail, but I hope to have a chance to develop my thoughts in Standing Committee. I have three principal concerns about the Bill and the ways in which it could still be improved. First, we need tighter and more justifiable definitions of serious crime than are in the Bill at present.
Secondly, the principle of prior independent authorisation should be followed as widely and as fully as possible in the legislation, and in so far as any exceptions are deemed absolutely necessary, they should be kept to a closely defined minimum.
Thirdly, the House should study and discuss fully the codes of practice to which we have heard reference, before the measure becomes law. We are all too well aware of the precedent of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It took five years for the codes of practice to appear in all their glory, and a further six years thereafter for the revised edition to appear. That is intolerable, and that pattern must not be repeated in this case.
We in the House should be concerned not only to combat organised crime, but to preserve the civilised quality of policing and law enforcement in our society. We ought to be aware of the extent to which the nature of our society and its cherished freedoms can be degraded by oppressive and unreasonable police practices.
Ministers are to be commended for having rightly decided at last to put on a statutory basis police practices which hitherto have been unregulated by statute. We should do the job properly and completely while we are


at it. Otherwise, we may all live to regret an important and timely opportunity to legislate in a truly responsible and balanced way.

Mr. Alun Michael: With the news tonight that a British soldier has been killed in Northern Ireland, we should remind ourselves that the protection of the public from terrorism and crime is a serious and difficult business.
The public expect the police to have the powers to protect them and their families, and they expect us to protect their civil liberties. In other words, the public expect Parliament to resolve conflict between the principles of public safety and civil liberty. Both are important. The public do not expect Parliament as a whole or individual Members of Parliament to be for one and against the other. They expect us to deal with such tensions. That is the essence of political responsibility.
I am looking forward to the Committee stage of the Bill, because it is a substantial piece of legislation that addresses a number of long-standing concerns on which the Labour party has sought action. The issues raised in the House are important and varied, which is why this has been an excellent debate. In his thoughtful contribution, short though it was, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) demonstrated that some of the important remaining concerns are shared by Conservative and Opposition Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made it clear that we will ensure that the Bill receives a Second Reading. We look forward to a constructive Committee stage. The Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), can be combative in debate, but he can also engage in constructive debate.
That is not as cosy as those who rarely visit the Committee Corridor seem to think. It is harder work for the Opposition and for Ministers to engage in reconciling issues and trying to find a way through some of the difficult problems that face this Parliament. Opposition is easy; constructive opposition, in which the Labour party is engaged, is hard work for both sides, but it represents the House of Commons at its best and it shows real democracy at work.
Incidentally, I was one of those who voted for the television cameras, radio and the press to be admitted to the proceedings of the House. That resolution covered the Committee Corridor—not just the attractive cross-examination that goes on in Select Committees but the work of Standing Committees. That important work deserves greater scrutiny by the press and the media.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) asked where the pressure for the Bill comes from. It comes from the Labour party, among others, because in our view it is unacceptable in a civilised society and democracy for intrusive surveillance to be undertaken by the loose conventions that have applied for the past 30 years, and applied under the Labour Government of which my right hon. Friend was a Cabinet Member. Nor is it acceptable for an organisation like the National Criminal Intelligence Service to lack corporate entity and be unaccountable, as it is now. It has loose

accountability to the Home Secretary, but that is not practical day-to-day accountability; although the need for a national dimension to deal with crime is evident, it would not be right to set up a national crime squad without tying its activity back into the British tradition of local police accountability.
Those measures are contained in the Bill. We called for them and welcomed them when the Bill was published. There remain issues to be dealt with. It is right for hon. Members on both sides of the House to want to get the Bill right in respect of surveillance, and I am not surprised that that has been the most contentious issue under discussion.
That, however, is not helped by what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) described as an apocalyptic view, which was illustrated by some hon. Members who spoke in the debate. On the other hand, several hon. Members, including the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) were right to say that we need to be careful to protect the confidentiality of client and lawyer or doctor and patient. As we go into Committee, we welcome the fact that Government and Opposition agree on the objective and are joined in the search for the right words.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton was right to reflect on the protection of volunteers and voluntary organisations, and to say that he had changed his views somewhat from the conclusion reached by his Committee. It is good that we should listen and learn, and I hope that that is how we shall continue on the Bill. It could be argued that the debate on the Bill is a good example of democracy in practice. Greater accuracy from the press and the media when they first started to look at the issues would have been helpful, but the debate in the House tonight has shown Members raising important issues on an informed basis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) made some important points in a thoughtful speech about surveillance. He said that the subject of surveillance may know nothing about it, whereas one would know if one were having one's fingerprints taken. It is an important point and it is why a nominal oversight as proposed by the Liberal Democrats would not be adequate to meet the need to have a tight and specific oversight of the use of the powers proposed in the Bill.
In two interventions, my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) raised points that have not had great attention. She spoke about the regulation of data via mobile phones. As the reply of the Home Secretary, on whom she intervened, appeared to miss the point that she was making, I hope that the Minister of State will undertake to review the whole matter in preparation for the Committee stage. If the use of mobile phones is covered by the Interception of Communications Act 1985, will he ensure that the collection of information is undertaken in the same way as for telephones attached to land lines? If it is not so covered, will he deal with the problem and ensure that we understand the position? Will he also tell us the current legal position with regard to subscriber data? That information can identify the location of a mobile phone user to within some 50 yd, and a great deal more. I should have thought that it comes under the existing Act. Is that the case? I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify those points.
What is the position with regard to user data on land lines? As we all know from perusal of our own bills, a mass of information is available on our calls. Is that information protected from intrusion without some due process? If the Minister cannot answer tonight, will he undertake to give that information to the House or at least write to me, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley, to clear the matter up properly?
The Home Secretary had to take several interventions about where the Bill's consideration in Committee should take place, including a number of rather lengthy and convoluted contributions from his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) made a similar point.
I am not sure that in all cases more is got out of a debate on the Floor of the House than in Standing Committee. The Committee stage is frequently the time when the most difficult issues are debated. Sometimes the Government are intransigent, as when we were debating the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill or the Police and Magistrates Courts Bill.
On other legislation, such as the Sexual Offences (Protected Material) Bill last week and, indeed, the Security Service Act 1996, there have been positive and constructive debates in Committee that improved and changed the legislation, precisely because the details could be teased out in the slightly different atmosphere of Committee sittings. Indeed, it was during the passage of the Security Service Bill last year that we called for independent police authorities to oversee the work of NCIS and the National Crime Squad.
It is interesting how the option of dealing with one bit of a Bill excites a number of hon. Members who rarely, if ever, participate in the detailed work of Standing Committees. The hon. and learned Member for Burton makes regular contributions in Committee, but he does not seem to expect to be on the Committee that will consider this Bill, which I assume is why he was so quick to offer a place on it to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. I have to include the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in that, because there are occasions when the Liberal Democrats get bored very easily when they make appearances in Committee.
I stress the importance of careful examination in Committee. I hope that we will not reach the point where Standing Committees are regarded as unimportant. They are an important part of scrutiny to ensure that we get legislation right, and they should not be minimised, as some hon. Members have sought to do tonight.
The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) referred to concern expressed by the Police Federation that the same terms and conditions and the same discipline should apply to officers seconded to NCIS and the NCS. I am not clear—perhaps the Minister will help on this—whether there is an omission or intention in the Bill, but we need to get to the bottom of that matter in Committee, and consider amendments to tease out the situation or to clarify exactly whether change is being made. As a matter of principle, there should surely be only one police service in this country.
The hon. Member for Ryedale referred also to evidence given to the Home Affairs Select Committee, but I must point out the need to take care with that evidence. My

hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn and I were puzzled by the evidence of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the regional crime squads, in which they appeared to be tell the Committee that they favoured the process of application to a circuit judge.
A careful reading of the evidence showed that that was the view expressed by the regional crime squads, not the Association of Chief Police Officers, which subsequently made it very clear to us that it did not share such a view. The problem that seems to have arisen is that the regional crime squads thought that it would be much easier to get the go-ahead from circuit judges than to get permission from chief constables, who turned out to be quite stringent about their applications. We need to be careful when we look at evidence to be sure that we have understood the reality behind it.
The hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) referred to part IV. I am glad that he did, because until that point I thought that I would be the only person to refer to it. Police information technology has indeed been a mess over the years. Some forces are better than others. I pay particular tribute to the Dyfed-Powys police—a small rural police force that is trying to make use of new technology, precisely to overcome the problems of distance and sparsity with which it has to deal. Co-ordination has been bad in the past. Chief constables have often been scathing about the lack of support for new technology development. That part of the Bill requires scrutiny in Committee, and we will seek to be satisfied that the structure will work, and will not be an arm's-length location for a different set of excuses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) made a series of points. I always listen to him with care, because he is a man of great principle and expresses genuine concerns. However, I think that he misunderstood a great deal of the Bill, and I offer him a private seminar, which would have been available to him before, had he expressed an interest.
The hon. Member for North Antrim referred to the confessional, and seemed to interpret that part of the Bill as referring to only the formal process of confession to a Roman Catholic priest. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) referred to it in much wider terms, and I think that he is right. I am not sure whether we have thought this matter through. The Home Secretary has clearly accepted the point in general terms, as with legal and medical confidentiality. It is a genuine matter for consideration in Committee to ensure that we get it right, so that the public can have confidence when they discuss personal issues with their minister of religion.
The code of conduct is very important. I appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock. In 1987, in the Committee considering the first major Bill in which I played some part as a Whip, I argued strongly that we could not deal properly with that legislation without the draft immigration rules. As Christmas approached, I asked for the draft and I presented the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), with a gift-wrapped copy of the previous immigration rules. We knew that the draft existed—it was on his desk—but it was not published until the day after Third Reading.
I commend the Minister for publishing the draft statutory instrument last year at the start of consideration of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill, because it enabled us to deal coherently with that measure. It greatly improved debate in Committee, and the legislation that came back to the Floor of the House as a result.
If the Bill is moving, it is a moving target. I understand the criticism, given that the original draft was not available in the Vote Office today; but that is a lesser evil than not seeing the statutory instrument. I ask the Minister to keep us up to date. A moving target is harder to work with, but it is better to have the Bill, even if we do not have the detail.
There has been limited opportunities in the debate to cover a wide range of issues. I look forward to discussing these matters further in Committee, and then returning to the Floor of the House with an improved Bill.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): We have had a full debate on this important Bill. The threat from serious and organised crime is real and growing. We are not defenceless: the police and Customs and Excise have had many successes in tackling organised crime. I pay tribute to their work, but we must never become complacent.
We have heard much about the use of intrusive surveillance. The impression is sometimes created that the police will be able to conduct surveillance whenever and wherever they like. That is not true, and it will not be true under the Bill. Intrusive surveillance is used to investigate only serious crime, and only as a last resort.
Major criminals make use of every modern technique to cover their tracks. They have no hesitation in using modern equipment to render police surveillance ineffective. They change premises and lines of communication quickly and frequently to escape detection. They will literally be laughing all the way to the bank if the police are hampered in their use of effective surveillance techniques against them. The House must not allow that to happen.
Of course there is a balance to be struck between civil liberty and the fight against crime. The proposed arrangements will strike that balance. The use of intrusive surveillance will continue to be strictly controlled. There will be additional safeguards against possible misuse. I stress that law-abiding citizens will have nothing to fear, but those engaged in serious crime must have nowhere to hide.
A number of hon. Members were worried about the definition of serious crime. It is a wide-ranging definition, but it has to be, to ensure that police can mount operations at an early stage, before there is any certainty about the precise criminal charges that may result some or many months later.
It is important to remember that, in addition to the criteria in the Bill, the draft code of practice specifically provides that authorising officers should satisfy themselves that the degree of intrusion into the privacy of those affected by the surveillance is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. Even if the police were minded to pursue some lesser criminals, under the

provisions of the Bill the requirement for proportionality would bite on the type of operation that they could mount. The commissioners would, I am sure, respond to any failure to observe that requirement.
The definition has been around for many years. It has been used successfully under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and, more recently, the Security Service Act 1996. It is clearly sensible to use the same test in regard to similar activities carried out by different bodies investigating the same type of crime.
The amendment expresses concern about criminal records. No provision in the Bill requires job applicants to produce a criminal conviction certificate. Such certificates are intended to be multi-purpose documents, issued only to individuals. They are likely to be used for purposes other than employment when individuals are required to produce a certificate of good conduct—for example, when applying for visas or permits to reside in foreign countries.
Unlike other certificates for which provision is made in the Bill, those certificates will disclose only information about convictions that are unspent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. It is open to any employer or organisation to seek that information, and the certificates will serve to confirm the accuracy of an individual's statement about his past. It will be for applicants and employers to decide when it is reasonable to produce a criminal conviction certificate.
I was astonished by the Liberal Democrats' concerns about NCIS and the National Crime Squad. I consider those concerns—articulated in their amendment—to be entirely without foundation. One of the Government's main aims was to ensure that the service authorities relating to NCIS and the National Crime Squad were fully consistent with the excellent tripartite arrangements that we have for policing, which provide proper local accountability.
The Bill already provides for police authority members of the National Crime Squad to be in the majority. Of the 17 members, nine will be representatives of local police authorities: nine out of 17 will be local authority members. NCIS is clearly a different kettle of fish from the National Crime Squad, because of its national responsibilities; even so, the Bill will provide for seven police authority representatives out of 19 members. That, I think, takes care of the Liberal Democrats' anxieties.
Hon. Members have raised a number of other concerns, relating to, for instance, police terms and conditions of employment. I paid particular attention to what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) and for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley). I intend to have another discussion with the Police Federation shortly—before the Committee stage, with luck—and I hope that I can assure the federation that its fears are groundless. I hope that I can assure my hon. Friends that theirs are as well.
Many hon. Members commented on volunteering and the cost of certificates—my right hon. Friends the Members for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) and for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), the hon. Members for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and, again, my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge. Let me tell my hon. Friend that I, too,


was a young farmer many years ago, and I do not share the concern expressed by the Worcestershire young farmers and others about the deleterious effect that the criminal conviction certificates or the criminal records agency provisions will have on those who volunteer to assist with young farmers' clubs. Nevertheless, we shall look forward to addressing those points in Committee, where I hope that we shall be able to reassure many more hon. Members.
Hon. Members also raised the question of security and destruction of unwanted material. Again, I look forward to giving reassurances in Committee about how that will be properly dealt with.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) asked about the technology for bugging. Once I discover how to work my own mobile telephone, I may become an expert on the technology to which he referred, but I understand that the reference in the Bill to interference with wireless telegraphy has nothing to do with remote surveillance. It is intended to cover the jamming of radio waves, for example, to prevent a criminal in a siege from hearing outside media broadcasts that could assist him. Others, however, may wish to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point about electronic surveillance in Committee.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for his points on the codes of practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) also raised those points. To assist the House, we intend to have valid codes of practice available for Bills going through the Committee, if we can possibly do so. The code of practice has to be rewritten substantially because of the changes in the other place and we shall try to bring a fresh code before the House as soon as we can.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) made an interesting speech. I always enjoy listening to his speeches; one day I may have a chance to listen to one of his sermons. He rightly pointed out that, even when the hardened sinner repenteth, he should be forgiven, but, before I could point it out, he went on to say that it was only for God to forgive sins. I think that the Home Secretary and I had better go no further than criminal conviction certificates on this earth at the moment.
The hon. Member for North Antrim also suggested that the Bill was a constitutional measure that should be considered on the Floor of the House, but I remind the House that two other important Bills of this nature, the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Security Service Act 1996, were also taken in Standing Committee. They were not given that unique treatment.
I want to set the Bill in context. It is a key part of the Government's programme of law and order reforms, the results of which are making this country a safer place. Recorded crime in the 12 months to June 1996 was 10 per cent. lower than three years before. That is a fall of more than 500,000 offences, the largest three-year drop since records began in 1857. We are determined to fight crime effectively with full backing for the police, the support of the community, proper emphasis on crime prevention and severe punishment for serious, persistent and dangerous offenders. We have demonstrated that progress can be made.
Since 1978–79, total spending on the police has more than doubled in real terms. Next year, total expenditure on policing in England and Wales will be around

£7.3 billion. Police authorities' spending power will be increased by £247 million, or 3.7 per cent. That includes extra funding for 2,000 more officers. There are now some 98,000 constables in England and Wales—more than ever before—and 16,000 more officers overall than when the Government came to power in 1979, but—this is of relevance to the debate—our commitment to law and order goes beyond ensuring that the police are properly resourced.
The Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 set out a new framework for the organisation and management of the police in England and Wales. That Act successfully introduced a new style of police authority, policing plans, objectives and key performance indicators. It is that model, which has worked so well, that forms the basis for the Bill's proposals for the National Crime Squad and NCIS.
We have also continued to ensure that the police have the right tools to do their job, exploiting new technology to the full. We have established the world's first DNA database and we have more than 3,300 matches. The police national network has drastically improved communications between police forces, and the new national automated fingerprint identification system will lead to a 430 per cent. efficiency increase in the number of identifications of fingerprint marks recovered from crime scenes. The creation in the Bill of the police information technology organisation will build on those achievements.
Strengthening the police is not enough on its own. Only 16 months ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced our intention to bring the Security Service into the fight against organised crime. The Security Service Act achieved that, and this Bill will complete the package of measures that he announced.
We have also taken steps to ensure that the police can properly investigate crime. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 modified the right of silence for someone being questioned by the police. Initial research suggests that there is a 50 per cent. drop in suspects staying silent at the police station.
Therefore, our commitment to the fight for law and order continues. We have brought a comprehensive package of measures before this Parliament, intended to make this country a safer place in which to live and work. The Crime (Sentences) Bill, which goes before another place tomorrow, is designed to provide real protection for the public against some of the most serious, dangerous and persistent offenders in our society. We are also taking action, through the Sex Offenders Bill, against those who perpetrate vile crimes against children and commit other sex offences.
Today we are considering the Police Bill, which is part of the Government's overall package. It will strengthen the fight against organised crime and protect the most vulnerable members of our society. The creation of NCIS and the National Crime Squad will establish nationally focused organisations to combat organised crime. We will put intrusive surveillance on a clear statutory basis, but one which protects the civil liberties of our people. We will ensure that the police have access to 21st-century technology in the fight against crime.
The Police Bill will have real practical benefits in the fight against crime. I urge the House to vote against the wrecking amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats, and to give the Bill a Second Reading. I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 41, Noes 264.

Division No. 75]
[10 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Llwyd, Elfyn


Barnes, Harry
Loyden, Eddie


Beith, Rt Hon A J
McCrea, Rev William


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Mackinlay, Andrew


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)
Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)


Chidgey, David
Paisley, Rev Ian


Cohen, Harry
Rendel, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth Kinross)
Salmond, Alex



Skinner, Dennis



Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Davies, Chris (Littleborough)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Etherington, Bill
Tyler, Paul


Foster, Don (Bath)
Wallace, James


Gerard, Neil
Welsh, Andrew


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Wigley, Dafydd


Harvey, Nick
Winnick, David


Johnston, Sir Russell



Jones, Dr Lynne (B'ham Selly Oak)
Tellers for the Ayes:



Ms Liz Lynne and


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Mr. Simon Hughes.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Carrington, Matthew


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Carttiss, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cash, William


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Amess, David
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Clappison, James


Arbuthnot, James
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Coe, Sebastian


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Conway, Derek


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Beggs, Roy
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bellingham, Henry
Couchman, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Curry, Rt Hon David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)


Booth, Hartley
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Boswell, Tim
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Devlin, Tim


Bowis, John
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Douglas-Hamilton, Rt Hon Lord James


Brandreth, Gyles



Brazier, Julian
Dover, Den


Bright, Sir Graham
Duncan, Alan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Duncan Smith, Iain


Browning, Mrs Angela
Dunn, Bob


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Burns, Simon
Dykes, Hugh


Butcher, John
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Butler, Peter
Elletson, Harold


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)





Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Faber, David
Lord, Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Luff, Peter


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fishburn, Dudley
MacKay, Andrew


Forman, Nigel
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stilling)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forth, Eric
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Malone, Gerald


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mans, Keith


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Marland, Paul


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Marlow, Tony


French, Douglas
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fry, Sir Peter
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gale, Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gallie, Phil
Mates, Michael


Gardiner, Sir George
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Merchant, Piers


Garnier, Edward
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Moate, Sir Roger


Gorst, Sir John
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Grylls, Sir Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hague, Rt Hon William
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Nicholls, Patrick


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Norris, Steve


Hannam, Sir John
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hargreaves, Andrew
Ottaway, Richard


Harris, David
Page, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Paice, James


Hawksley, Warren
Patten, Rt Hon John


Heald, Oliver
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Pawsey, James


Hendry, Charles
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Pickles, Eric


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Porter, David


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Powell, William (Corby)


Horam, John
Rathbone, Tim


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildf'd)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Richards, Rod


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Robathan, Andrew


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hunter, Andrew
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jack, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Sackville, Tom


Jessel, Toby
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, David (Dover)



Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shersby, Sir Michael


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sims, Sir Roger


Knapman, Roger
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


Knox, Sir David
Soames, Nicholas


Kynoch, George
Speed, Sir Keith


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spink, Dr Robert


Legg, Barry
Spring, Richard


Leigh, Edward
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lidington, David
Steen, Anthony






Stephen, Michael
Walden, George


Stern, Michael
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Stewart, Allan
Waller, Gary


Streeter, Gary
Ward, John


Sweeney, Walter
Wardle, Chartes (Bexhill)


Sykes, John
Waterson, Nigel


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Watts, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangf'd)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Whittingdale, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Thomason, Roy
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)
Willetts, David


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wilshire, David


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Tracey, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Tredinnick, David
Yeo, Tim


Trend, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Trotter, Neville



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills),
That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Rev. Ian Paisley.]
Question negatived.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

POLICE BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(l)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Police Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses of the Secretary of State attributable to the provisions of the Act,
(b) any compensation payable, by virtue of the provisions of the Act, by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and
(c) any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment; and

(2) the payment of any sums into the Consolidated Fund.— [Mrs. Lait.]

Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Pensions

That the draft Register of Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 28th January, be approved. —[Mrs. Lait.]
Question agreed to.

TRANSFER OF CROFTING ESTATES (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]

Motion made, and Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94E(2) (Scottish Grand Committee (Bills in relation to their principle)),
That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee. —[Mrs. Lait.]
Question agreed to.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That, at the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee on Monday 17th February, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 94E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)), the Chairman shall put any Question necessary to dispose of any Motion which may be made in relation to the Transfer of Crofting Estates Bill [Lords] at half-past Two o'clock, if not previously concluded.—[Mrs. Lait.]

PETITION

Pembrokeshire Ambulance Service

Mr. Nick Ainger: I am here to present a petition that has been signed by more than 60,200 people in Pembrokeshire.
The humble petition of the people of Pembrokeshire sheweth,
that the proposal to end local control of the Pembrokeshire Ambulance Service by merging it with the West Wales Ambulance Trust will lead to increased costs and a significantly reduced quality of service.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable house call on the Secretary of State for Wales to reject any proposal to merge the Pembrokeshire Ambulance Service and the West Wales Ambulance Trust.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Basking Sharks

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Lait.]

Ms Joan Walley: It is with some trepidation that I raise the issue of the quinquennial review of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, especially the consideration of the listing of the basking shark as an endangered species, although I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. I raise it with trepidation because, as you may have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my constituency is a long way from the sea, although we have a very good canal system, so the sea is not totally inaccessible. Every attempt so far to put the basking shark on the endangered species list has failed. The time has come for action by the House.
In the long time that I have been involved in campaigning on various environmental issues, I have met many local people in environmental organisations and wildlife and countryside groups who are convinced of the soundness of the case for the basking shark to be listed under schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. They have convinced me, and I hope that, when the Secretary of State makes his decision on 1 April, all the efforts on behalf of the basking shark will have been successful.
I wonder whether it is an accident that the basking shark has been left off the list so far, because it is bizarre that such a species has not been afforded the same protection as the red squirrel and other animals. Speaking to many different environmental groups led me to find out more about the basking shark. I wanted to discover exactly what kind of creature it is and why it is facing the threat of extinction.
Unlike the killer whale, the basking shark is a gentle giant. I understand from those who follow this matter closely that it was a common creature in our coastal waters and was bound up with folklore. It used to arrive in the Isle of Man waters during the hot summer days around May, but nobody knew where it went in September. There is scope for more scientific experiments to gain an understanding of how this creature lives.
There has been a marked reduction in sightings of the basking shark, particularly around the coast of the Isle of Man. The basking shark project in the Isle of Man—which is run by Ken Waterson and various volunteers and is supported by the Isle of Man Government—has raised concerns about this. There is a fear that the basking shark faces a real threat of extinction. We understand that the population status of the basking shark is unknown, and we know that its biological characteristics—including a slow growth rate—make it more susceptible to exploitation.
I shall deal briefly with the role of the Isle of Man Government. Under Manx legislation, the basking shark is already afforded protection, and that protection is based on the work of the basking shark project. The next logical step was for the Isle of Man to apply to the United Kingdom Government for appendix II status under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species at the next round of negotiations, which I understand will take place in Zimbabwe in June this year. The application

from the Isle of Man exposed the nonsense that this creature is free to bask in Isle of Man waters, but not in United Kingdom waters beyond the Isle of Man limits.
Fortunately, we have not had a constitutional crisis on this, and I am glad to recognise that the Government have gone some way to making amends. I understand that the Isle of Man will be formally included in the delegation to Zimbabwe, and that Ken Waterson may be part of it. I look forward to being kept informed of the progress that is being made. It is important that the United Kingdom delegation should be able to contribute to the sharks working party which will meet under CITES. The whole episode has demonstrated our failure to get the basking shark on to the CITES appendix II list, and that has highlighted the real fiasco that we now face.
I want a commitment from the Minister that the Government will match the commitment from the Isle of Man, and that they will consider the basking shark under wildlife and countryside legislation. I want the Government to go further, and to discuss whether the Isle of Man, Jersey and other islands should have a say when we deliberate nature and conservation. I am not asking for the islands to play a full part, but it is essential that the Isle of Man should be included. I hope also that the Minister recognises that—in addition to the lack of scientific evidence—an obstacle to all this is the embarrassment of the Government being asked to negotiate internationally on what they were not prepared to do at home as recently as 10 January.
The real obstacle is the Government's unwillingness to take the precautionary approach. There would have been a different outcome to the application by the Isle of Man on 10 January to list the basking shark if the Government had accepted the precautionary approach and the recommendation of various organisations in previous reviews of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
We want the Minister to give a commitment to the precautionary approach tonight. After all, the Government—whichever Government—of the day hold all endangered species in trust for tomorrow, for our children and grandchildren. It is the duty of Governments to ensure that biodiversity is maintained in United Kingdom waters. The Minister cannot pick and choose which threatened species to include, and an excellent case has already been made for the basking shark.
We should be doing far more to strengthen the Wildlife and Countryside Act. It is a question not only of which species are threatened by deliberate acts—trade, hunting and so on—but of the way in which we honour our obligations under the Berne convention and the habitats directive. We also need to protect threatened species effectively from the incidental results of lawful operations, whether in hedgerows, the seas, or anywhere else.
Perhaps the Minister will cast some light on why he has failed to accept the precautionary approach and on the reasons for previous recommendations being overturned. I have met a range of people through my concern for the basking shark, including the chairmen of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and of English Nature.
Will the Minister expand on where he expects objections to come from in the consultation exercise that he has recently undertaken? Is it the case that the Scottish Office and market forces have been given greater priority than the protection of endangered species such as the


basking shark? Why has the Scottish Office had such a large say, when so many people have acted in the best interests of the basking shark?
Is the Department of the Environment perhaps out of step with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? I am grateful to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), the Labour spokesman on fisheries and agriculture. Does the Minister have any knowledge—this is pure speculation and fantasy—of whether the Government have traded 100 tonnes of basking shark liver oil for an as yet undetermined quota for United Kingdom fishing of white fish in Norwegian waters?
I hesitate to put that to the Minister, but I am trying to work out why the basking shark has already been rejected twice for listing. Is it an accidental oversight or is there some bizarre reason? I would welcome an assurance that there is no prospect of Norwegian whaling boats sailing around the Isle of Man, or anywhere in the Irish sea—even up to the Wirral—and harpooning basking sharks. It would be helpful to know what exactly is the current understanding with Norway, and whether at some future stage Norway could fish our basking sharks in return for a white fish quota agreement.
I urge the Minister to take account of what I believe is overwhelming support for the protection of the basking shark. Support has been expressed by English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Marine Conservation Society, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature shark specialist group and the basking shark project in the Isle of Man.
I must pay tribute to the tireless work done by Ken Waterson in the surveillance of basking sharks. Indeed, he has brought together volunteers from all over the world to try to keep tabs on what is happening. The Manx Government, the English Wildlife Trust, the Scottish Wildlife Trust and the university of Liverpool have also expressed support. Will the Minister note that that is more support than for any other species proposed for protection in the review?
When the Minister reaches his decision, will he also take into account the JNCC, which has put forward proposals yet again to the Department of the Environment and does not want them to be overturned once again?
Finally, there is concern that failure to protect the basking shark within the framework of our domestic legislation has implications for the undertakings that we have given on biodiversity internationally. The species has been assessed as globally vulnerable under the IUCN red list of endangered species criteria. Other countries are already accepting that it requires protection. The United Kingdom should be playing a leading role in all this. Whatever cuts are being made to the budgets of English Nature—those cuts should not be being made at all—money should be found properly to fund and co-ordinate scientific research.
More help should be given to projects such as the basking shark project in the Isle of Man. If endangered species status is granted for the basking shark on 1 April when the results are known, I hope that the Government will involve themselves in extensive monitoring and be in a strong position to play a leading part in international discussions.
I urge the Minister to heed the warnings that we have been given and to take account of the significant number of Members of Parliament who signed the early-day

motion calling for action based on the precautionary principle—action already taken by the Isle of Man Government. I hope that, for the basking shark at least, it will be a case of third time lucky when the Government's decision is made in April.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) has raised an important subject, in which there is wide interest. She need not feel any trepidation about raising the subject, as there is such interest in it; I acknowledge that she has taken a consistent interest in the status of the basking shark.
I shall deal with the position as far as the quinquennial review of schedules 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is concerned, but first I shall briefly consider the wider context in which the hon. Lady set out this important issue. She will know of the active part that the Government play in the operation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.
While I understand that she is disappointed that the United Kingdom was unable to propose listing of the basking shark in appendix II of CITES—a decision that we think was soundly based on the Government's view that the proposal would not have met the internationally agreed criteria for listing a species in the appendix—I am grateful for the welcome she gave the incorporation of an Isle of Man representative on the UK delegation at the next CITES conference of the parties in June. I am sure that that arrangement will enable the issue to be discussed fully in the conference and its working groups, with additional expert knowledge and interest.
I am sure that the hon. Lady will also welcome the part that the Government's biodiversity initiative is playing, our response under our Rio commitments, and the fact that the basking shark is one of a considerable number of UK species whose status will be monitored by the UK biodiversity group in the next five years. We certainly believe that the current quinquennial review exercise will be helpful in that process and will assist the group in submitting its next report.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the EU habitats and birds directives. As she knows, we are playing a full part in responding to those European commitments on top of our other international commitments.
The 1981 Act is the primary Act for conservation in Great Britain. The JNCC began work on the third and current quinquennial review in 1995. Between mid-1995 and mid-1996, the JNCC sought the views of relevant scientists and non-governmental organisations to arrive at a list of 34 recommendations. The recommendations were that one animal, the bugloss moth, should be removed from schedule 5 and that 12 animals should be added to it; four animals already on schedule 5 should receive increased protection; 17 plants should be added to it. The basking shark is one of the animals recommended for addition to schedule 5.
The Government intend to be as open as possible in our consideration of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee's recommendations. To this end, a public consultation exercise began on 29 January. The consultation period expires on 1 April. I am sure that hon. Members will recognise that, until the exercise is


concluded and the views of all interested parties have been considered, it is impossible to predict whether the recommendations will be supported and acted on. Although I can give no indication of the likely outcome of our consideration of the JNCC's recommendations in respect of any of the 34 species concerned, I feel that I should respond to the concerns raised by the hon. Lady about the basking shark.
In its current recommendation, the JNCC claims that there is still inadequate data on the population status and vulnerability of the basking shark. As the hon. Lady said, it is a gentle creature and I believe that it is our largest fish. However, it can be vulnerable. She suggested that protection was justified on the basis of the precautionary principle. The lack of clear, comprehensive scientific data for the species in British waters makes the task of assessing the merits of the case difficult.
The shark was similarly recommended by the JNCC's predecessor, the Nature Conservancy Council, in earlier quinquennial reviews of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in 1986 and 1991. Insufficient data about or evidence of an immediate threat to basking shark populations in UK waters meant that it was not listed for protection after those reviews. In its current recommendation, the JNCC recognises that the basking shark is notoriously difficult to monitor, with few verified records. The notable exception, as the hon. Lady said, is the Isle of Man waters.
It has been long been accepted that the primary threats to the species are, first, directed fisheries and, secondly, accidental disturbance and capture by man. Evidence from around the world suggests that where the species is targeted, it suffers severe declines from which it may not recover. At present, there is no UK basking shark fishery. The hon. Lady mentioned the position with Norway. Norway has a quota to take 100 tonnes of basking shark liver from UK waters. Only 5.8 tonnes, or roughly 15 basking sharks, were recorded in 1993, and nothing was taken in 1991, 1992, 1994 or 1995.
Evidence of damage to or loss of stocks commonly cited relates to directed fisheries in Canada during the 1950s and in Ireland between 1947 and 1975. Similar findings have been made in other shark fisheries off California and Florida. It is important to remember that such declines were the result of targeted fisheries and occurred in waters some distance from the United Kingdom, where different climates, both of population and meteorology, exist.

Ms Walley: Does the Minister agree that, while sightings are not scientific data as such, the evidence from the Isle of Man over five years has been of a drastic reduction in the number of sightings? We should take account of that surveillance, because fewer sharks are being seen.

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Lady has made an interesting point, and we shall consider the position scientifically during the consultation. We welcome views and evidence coming forward as part of the debate and during the consultation period.
The impact of accidental capture, or by-catch, of basking sharks in fisheries targeting other species is less clear. To date, British voluntary fisheries recording

schemes have provided no evidence of incidental capture of basking sharks in nets deployed for other marine stocks.
What is clear is that there appears to be a relative lack of robust scientific evidence concerning the basking shark in British waters and further afield within the north-east Atlantic region. It would appear appropriate, therefore, to investigate further the data available for the basking shark before reaching any conclusions. In part, the public consultation exercise will facilitate such a review.
Additionally, however, I would anticipate—this responds to the hon. Lady's point—that it will be necessary to hold one or more focused meetings to ensure that the Government consider all available information and evidence before reaching any decision. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to welcome the work that the hon. Lady has done to stimulate a debate on this species. I am sure that she will want to work with my Department to ensure that all the facts are made available as part of that debate.
Having spent some time discussing the basking shark specifically, I remind colleagues that the approach that I have outlined and that the Government will be taking to ensure that an informed and appropriate decision is taken in respect of the basking shark will also be applied to all the other 33 species subject to the JNCC's recommendations. The Government will be open in their considerations and would welcome information from all interested and affected individuals and organisations.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the Norwegian quota, and I accept his description of the take over the years. However, in the context of abiding by the precautionary principle that was laid out so clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), would the Minister, from his Department, be prepared to recommend to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that the fishery for basking sharks should be closed until more information is collected on the status of the basking shark and the effect on populations around the UK coast?

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman's point speaks for itself. He will agree that we have to look at the evidence and debate it before we can reach conclusions such as the one that he suggests, but I hear what he says in that respect.
I hope that, once the formal public consultation exercise concludes on 1 April 1997, we shall be able to reach a consensus decision on each species so as to enable those species which require additional protection to be added to schedule 5 or 8 as soon as possible thereafter.
In the course of this short debate, I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. Lady about the rigour of our approach towards protecting this important species and other species under the auspices of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, our other commitments under the Rio convention and our European commitments, under which we are protecting much of our animal life and biodiversity.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.